Friday, February 1, 2008

Wilkins’ Excuse

U P D A T E #2:
Former PCA Assistant Prosecutor Lane Keister has written some excellent thoughts regarding Wilkins’ excuses in a post titled “Wilkins’s Rationale”; here’s a keeper: “In any case, he can no longer bear the name of ‘Machen,’ since Machen faced his trial.” Off point, but somehow I just can’t see Machen in a rubber nose.

U P D A T E:
Sean Gerety has written a good critique of Wilkins’ excuse; he titled it “One More Bronx Cheer for the PCA.” His last line says it all: “it would have been nice if he had the dignity to leave without feeling the need to turn around and thumb his nose one last time.”

Steve Wilkins has published his reasons for leaving the PCA (here). It is full of blame-shifting and misrepresentations. If ever a man lived in a fantasyland and refused to take responsibility for his sins, Steven “Machen” Wilkins is that man.


Anonymous said...

Again, you need to get a life ...

Mark T. said...

And you are bad monkey boy who is ashamed of his baptized name. But I understand.

Anonymous said...

"the so-called 'Federal Vision'"?

These men are so willfully adversarial and dissimulating, it's totally absurd.

Anonymous said...


Can you please show where the "blame-shifting and misrepresentations" are? If you're "fully documented" you ought to actually document these allegations.

Mark T. said...


I appreciate your request so much that if I get the time I will devote a whole post to it. In the meantime, please allow this to suffice. Wilkins writes,

“Presbytery’s decision not to conduct a trial of me was influenced by the stated unwillingness of some to submit to the outcome of a presbytery trial if that trial resulted in a decision in my favor.”

Notice that this sentence offers no proof to support its innuendo, which Wilkins pointed at the persons (if they exist) who stated their unwillingness to submit to the outcome of a presbytery trial. More importantly, notice how he blames these me for their “unwillingness to submit” when in fact Wilkins would only submit to LAP on the condition that they voted in his favor. The instant they pled guilty to the second specification in the Indictment, he ran. In other words, HE REFUSED TO SUBMIT, though he shifted the blame to unnamed persons.

Wilkins continues with more innuendo:

“Some of the members of the Presbytery informed us that they had already decided to file a complaint against the decision of the Presbytery to the SJC if a trial by the Presbytery exonerated me — regardless of what the trial evidence showed.”

Setting aside the absence of evidence to support this statement, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? There is no sin involved if presbyters appeal a decision to the SJC. It’s called process. In fact, it’s the same process that the PCA would have granted to Wilkins if the decision went against him, as it probably would have since LAP pled guilty to the second specification.

Wilkins continues,

“They also acknowledged that the SJC would reverse any decision which exonerated me. This seemed to influence Presbytery’s decision not to hold the trial itself, but rather to refer the matter directly to the SJC for final disposition.”

This is a pile of boloney. Strike that. It’s a flat-out lie. And you’ll notice that Wilkins provides no evidence to support this outrageous falsehood BECAUSE HE CAN’T. It’s pure imagination. It’s also an attempt to shift the blame to the SJC. He had to run, because the SJC was resolved to screw him.

Wilkins continues,

“Furthermore, I believe Presbytery feared — based on threats set forth in the indictment of the presbytery — that if it did try me and, upon receiving and reviewing the evidence adduced by my accusers and by myself in my defense, exonerate me, the Presbytery would be cut off from the PCA.”

This is another bald-faced lie. The indictment gave LAP the option of dissolving its ties to the PCA if it refused to try Wilkins, which is not the same of threatening to dissolve the presbytery if it vindicates Wilkins pursuant to BCO process.

Think about it, Mark. If the PCA is as corrupt as Wilkins implies in this one paragraph, then why would any of the men who voted to cover for Wilkins stay in it? The answer is obvious. He lost the support that he has enjoyed for five years now. But rather than admit the obvious, he blamed everyone else and ran.