Pooh,
You discover two alarming contradictions when you compare the Kirk elders’ private statements about Burke Shade with their public statements. First, they contradicted themselves regarding who had the “burden of proof.” Second, they contradicted themselves regarding the precise nature of that burden. The Christ Church Elder Meeting Minutes dated July 13, 2000, state:
Doug Jones reported that the ad hoc committee concerning Burke Shade recommends . . . that we should wait while Chris Schlect and Doug Jones continue to work through the trial materials. . . Doug Wilson reminded the elders that we have already agreed this situation is not a barrier to Burke Shade and his church being accepted into the CRE, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that . . . the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions. . . (Emphasis added)
Read it this way:
Doug Wilson reminded the elders that we have already agreed this situation is not a barrier to Burke Shade and his church being accepted into the CRE, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that . . . the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions [that on September 16, 1999, they agreed to recieve Shade and his church into the CRE, and they agreed this situation — the PCA’s discipline — is not a barrier to Shade and his church being accepted by the CRE].
However, one month later, on August 17, 2000, the Christ Church elders adopted their “Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” which they sent to the PCA’s Illiana Presbytery and to the CRE. You will note that, in addition to misrepresenting who carried the burden of proof, they neglected to declare their pre-existing agreement to receive Shade:
Illiana Presbytery delivered these materials [PCA vs. Shade trial documents] to us in good faith, understanding that we would use them “only for the purpose of adjudicating Cornerstone’s entry into the CRE Denomination.” It was for this very purpose that we studied these documents. . . And since the PCA is a faithful presbyterian church, we began evaluating the case by assuming the correctness of the Illiana decision, with Shade having the burden of proof. (“Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” emphasis added)
The contradictions are apparent. In the first document they admit cutting a deal with Shade to ignore the PCA’s discipline, so that he could join the CRE. In the second they conceal their agreement with Shade, so they could dissemble by stating that they assumed “the correctness” of the PCA’s discipline and that Shade had the “burden of proof.” In other words, the Kirk elders tailored their message to fit the expectations of their audience; they were Shade’s legal defense team, but they represented themselves as judges who agreed with the PCA.
Now, given Wilson’s & Jones’ penchant for sophistry, they may equivocate, arguing, “What’s the difference? We still proved Shade’s innocence.” But that’s not the point. The point is that the Kirk elders tainted their conclusion by agreeing to receive Shade before examining the evidence against him. The point is that they stained their conclusion with duplicity.
And according to the CRE minutes, on October 19, 2001, the Kirk elders induced the CRE to unanimously adopt the “Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” falsehoods et al. They did this in capacity of their office as ministers of the gospel.
