Missouri Presbytery
Presbyterian Church in America
Rev. Ron Lutjens, Moderator
416 Fairlawn Avenue
Webster Groves, MO 63119
314-962-6196
April 27, 2010
Walt Cook
161 W. Pine St
Spearfish, SD 57783-8633
Dear brothers in the Lord,
Greetings to you in the name of our crucified and risen Savior. We received your letter concerning Jeff Meyers via our Clerk on or about Friday, March 26. It was brought to the whole Presbytery for its consideration at our Spring Stated meeting on Tuesday, April 20. I am writing to you now on behalf of the Missouri Presbytery as its moderator; we regard this letter as something between you, the signatories of the letter of allegation, and us as a Presbytery at this point. That’s why we went into executive session at our stated meeting to discuss it, and why we gave strict instructions to those there that they were honor-bound to share with no one outside that executive session either our decision to write to you, or the substance of the letter or anything in the conversation we had. We trust you will take the same view and keep this confidential between us and you. We realize that you, as signers, are not one monolithic group; but you are bound together by putting your name to these allegations, so we are writing to all of you, and are very hopeful of a response.
The brothers in executive session approved the substance of this letter, and our Administrative Committee has helped in shaping it and formally approved the final draft.
We want it to be clear that we do regard your letter as not merely passing on information to us to the effect that unspecified “reports” concerning TE Jeffrey Meyers are out there somewhere, but rather as being itself one of those reports alleging that Jeffrey is teaching a theology contrary to our doctrinal standards. This was our sense of the letter when we received it and read it in connection with the attached document, How TE Jeffrey Meyers Opposes the Westminster Standards. This was confirmed for us in my correspondence with Wes White, one of the signers, who acknowledged being the author of both the letter and the attached statement. So we take these two communications together as allegations that the signatories of your letter are making against TE Meyers, accusing him — to use your own words — of:
- denying the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards.
- rejecting the idea that Christ’s merits are imputed to us.
- affirming that baptism effects a saving, covenantal union with Christ.
- affirming that this saving union occurs with all the baptized.
- denying that all who are saved will ultimately end up in heaven.
- rejecting justification by faith alone. [reference here to How TE Jeffrey. . . .]
Please know that we are investigating these allegations, and that in fact, Jeff Meyers has himself asked for this investigation because he has felt aggrieved by your report, finding it to be most injurious to him and his good name and ministry. We have no intention of refusing to act in this doctrinal matter — and indeed, we are acting, as these are very serious issues for us. You are right to remind us of our duty to exercise care over those who are subject to our authority, our brothers in the Lord and fellow presbyters. But it is precisely this care of our brothers to which we have pledged ourselves to that constrains us to raise questions with you now about the way in which you went about making these allegations. We have erected a committee to investigate these allegations against TE Meyers. But we feel conscience-bound, as we signal them to begin their work, to ask you to consider humbly before the Lord whether you have acted in love toward your brother, Jeff Meyers, and in faithfulness to your ordination vows when you pledged yourselves to be “zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity and peace and unity of the church.”
We are trying to come in a spirit of gentleness, as the Apostle Paul, in Galatians 6:1, admonishes us to do when we believe a brother(s) is/are offending against Christ and his law of love and his revealed truth. The good name of TE Jeffrey Meyers has already been dishonored. We are asking you to consider, before the Lord, the possibility that this could have been avoided, and your own concerns still addressed, if you had been more careful with the requirements of the 9th commandment and had done the following two things:
1) Taken the time yourselves to converse with TE Meyers as to how he can square various things he has written with a) his having taken subscription vows at his ordination; and b) with his having committed himself to the affirmations and denials of the 2006 Missouri Presbytery study report on Federal Vision ideas.
We have already been in conversation with TE Meyers on all the doctrinal matters you raise in your letter. We were, with due diligence, carrying out our oversight responsibilities when we wrote, discussed, and debated a statement on “Federal Vision” issues back in 2005–2006. It was adopted by Missouri Presbytery in the winter of 2006. This statement was made available to the wider public throughout the PCA and was included in our minutes that were approved by the General Assembly. You even refer to our FV statement approvingly in your letter to us. All members of our presbytery, including TE Myers, have indicated that they are in accord with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine set out in the confessional standards of the PCA and with the doctrinal clarifications we articulated in our FV statement.
According to testimony we received from TE Meyers, none of the signatories of your letter has ever contacted him personally (whether by email, phone, or letter) since our presbytery’s adoption of its FV statement in 2006 to talk with him about his views and especially to seek to clarify contradictions you allege between our confessional standards/FV affirmations and denials on one side, and statements made by TE Meyers on the other side. If this is true, then the fact that you would bring allegations now against TE Meyers, insisting he is not in accord with the Westminster Standards and with the doctrinal clarifications we made in our Federal Vision statement, when none of you took the time and care to speak to him personally, strikes us as being out of accord with our confessional standards which bind us to the 9th commandment, God’s law for truth-telling. We also consider your actions to be out of accord with the clear biblical injunction to put the cause of another’s honor even before our own:
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. (Romans 12:9–10)
. . . with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself. (Philippians 2:3)
You have sent us various statements pulled from Jeff Meyers’ writings, isolated from their context. It is incumbent on our investigative committee to go back and carefully examine these statements — in their original context, and you may be sure they will. But we would ask, Have all of you who signed the letter felt yourselves obligated too, to read TE Meyers’ statements in their original context? We hope so; but we are hard pressed to presume it. Because if, as TE Meyers maintains, none of you have spoken to him personally about his views in the last few years, then clearly you are putting on his words your construction rather than his, apparently with little regard to the danger — warned against in our confessional standards — of misconstruing TE Meyers’ words and intentions, and therefore, with little regard to the danger of distorting his teaching, of creating a caricature of it which could cast a shadow over his good name and ministry.
Our Catechism warns that we break God’s law in the 9th commandment and dishonor someone’s good name when we “misconstruct intentions, words, and actions” (WLC #145), i.e., things a person said, did, or even thought. In other words, the Westminster divines here implicitly condemn as sinful a disregard for whether we have understood properly what a person intends his words or actions to mean. And surely the divines were right to do so. Since 2006 especially, some of you should have been conversing with TE Meyers in order to be sure you understood his written statements and how it was that he believed them to be consistent with our FV statement, the Westminster Standards, and Scripture itself. We believe that this neglect contributed to premature allegations against TE Meyers; and by your passivity in not seeking clarification directly from him, you virtually shut your ears against any defense TE Meyers might have made on his own behalf. And those who refuse to seek from a man any defense at all of his actions or words before accusing him, already show that they care little whether the accused person’s defense is just or not. In doing so they make themselves liable to the charge that they are “stopping [their] ears against just defense,” contrary to the righteous requirements of the 9th commandment (WLC #145).
It will not do simply to appeal to a popular principle that goes something like this: “All public statements are fair game for public criticism and1or allegations.” in general, the idea that a public rebuttal is the proper remedy for an objectionable public statement would seem a sound one. But the principle as stated assumes what in so many situations will simply not be the case: that the original objectionable public statement was completely unambiguous in intent and meaning. Where there is a reasonable chance that it is not, then what follows by good and necessary consequence from WLC’s requirement (#144 and #145) that we not to “misconstruct” (misconstrue) our neighbor’s “intentions” and “words” — what logically follows from this is that we must talk with our neighbor and listen to him in the process of trying to discern what his statements mean.
Let anyone who claims that this principle of “public statement warrants public criticism” is enshrined in the Book of Church Order be reminded that the BCO insists that all of its rules, provisions and principles are themselves subject to the Westminster Standards, and hence to the Larger Catechism’s exposition of the 9th commandment. Since there were concerns among you about the orthodoxy of some of TE Meyers’ statements, all of you had — before you signed onto and brought these allegations — as much of an obligation before the Lord as we have now that you have brought them, to do everything in your power to avoid the danger of distorting the truth by caricaturizing Jeff’s views. What is prohibited in the 9th commandment, according to WLC #145, is practicing, or not avoiding ourselves . . . . such things as procure an ill name. And distortion by caricaturization certainly procures a bad name — for the one being caricaturized. So we ask: Were you ever concerned to avoid the danger of distortion by caricaturization in the process of making these allegations? What practical steps did you take to avoid it? We would hope to find in all of you a most serious concern to avoid that danger, but what is the evidence that concern?
And any appeal to BCO 31-2 that implies the onus is only on the overseeing presbytery — and not on those bringing reports that are allegations — to talk directly with a man so as to avoid the danger of misconstructing, misconstruing his intentions and words has to he rejected out of hand, because it implies that only the overseeing presbytery is bound by the 9th commandment. All of us are bound by the confessionally-defined duties of the 9th commandment in all relationships all the time. It’s our agreed-upon understanding of what God the Lord requires of each of us.
And secondly, we are asking you to consider that you should have been more careful with the requirements of the 9th commandment and:
2) Not gone public with these allegations until Missouri Presbytery had had opportunity to evaluate them.
Despite the Catechism’s warning that we sin when we “prejudice . . . the good name of our neighbors,” some of you, apparently, either passed on these allegations against TE Meyers to others who then broadcast them across cyber space by putting them online within a couple days of our receiving them, or you broadcast them on the internet yourselves. And this was well before our Presbytery had an opportunity even to consider them. We should note here that on April 8 we received with gratitude the apology of eight of your signers who took offense at the way these allegations were made public so quickly. We want to be careful, because we do not know how many of you knew and approved of these documents being made public; some of you clearly did not. But what has happened is a very serious thing. Whereas the 9 commandment enjoins upon you as Christians the duty of “discouraging slanderers,” you have — at least some of you — by broadcasting these unexamined allegation of wrongdoing across the world, actually encouraged and abetted slander against Jeff Meyers; after all he is your neighbor as well as ours. Is it not fair of us to ask whether your love of the brotherhood has truly produced in you what the 9th commandment implies we should find ourselves doing in relationship to others: “loving, desiring and rejoicing in their good name”? (See WLC #144.) But when you broadcast your allegations to the world via the internet virtually as soon as they are passed on to our Presbytery rather than after we have carefully weighed them, how can we not suspect that in the thinking of the majority of you, the more people who believe these allegations against Jeff Meyers are true, the better?
Former Westminster Seminary professor, John Murray wrote this in his book on ethics under the heading, “The Sanctity of Truth”:
No warning or plea is more germane to the question of truth than that we cultivate the reserve and exercise the caution whereby we shall be preserved from rash and precipate judgments and from the vice of peddling reports that are not authenticated by the proper evidence. . . . The man of truth is the man of resolute, decisive conviction; he is also the man of scrupulous reserve. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people” (Leviticus 19:16). (John Murray, Principles of Conduct, [Eerdmans, 1957, 134–35)
Where has that “scrupulous reserve” manifested itself in your actions in this matter of TE Meyers’ views? We confess, sadly, that we have not seen much of it.
It grieves us that you have shown so little regard for the honor of Jeff Meyers’ name in this whole matter. Some of you know the writings of the faithful Reformed pastor in London, Thomas Watson, a contemporary of the Westminster divines. He wrote a fine exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s treatment of the ten commandments [sic]. We believe all of us would do well to ponder Watson’s defense of the Shorter Catechism’s treatment of the 9th commandment. That commandment implies a duty to protect another person’s reputation:
Some are loath to take away their neighbor’s goods — conscience would fly in their face; but better take away the corn out of their field, their wares out of their shop, than take away their good name. This is a sin for which no reparation can be made; a blot in a man’s name being like a blot on white paper, which will never be got out.
It’s no wonder then, when he goes on to expound the warning against slandering someone, that Watson says:
Love is a lovely grace; . . . It puts the best interpretation upon another’s words. (Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments [Banner of Truth, rep. 1986] 171–72)
And so it does; in those occasions when we realize someone has put the best construction on our own words, we are reminded that we have been loved well in that. How we wish there was evidence that you were concerned to do this with your brother, Jeff Meyers.
We want to assure you that our protest over the way you have brought your allegations against TE Meyers will not compromise the objectivity of our investigation of his teaching; we see them as two different issues and have every confidence our men are mature enough to honor that difference. But we are asking you, with regard to the two points we’ve raised with you, to take a fresh look at the WLC’s exposition of the divine prohibition against bearing false witness against someone made in the image of God and ask yourselves whether you have fulfilled the duty of love all of you owe to TE Meyers as a brother in Christ, a duty even more incumbent upon you precisely because of your conviction that he is guilty of teaching theological errors. When we are convinced a brother is guilty of some transgression, it becomes far easier to justify taking short cuts in the hard work of practicing the duties of love toward him. Who of us is not aware of that tendency?
We do believe you have broken the 9th commandment in these two ways, and that both of them are serious breaches of the law of love. We humbly ask you to consider making an apology to Jeff Meyers — not for having concerns about his theology but on these two points we have raised with you. And it would be a sign to us of your spiritual seriousness if you were to make your apology public, not disavowing your original concerns, but acknowledging that shortcuts were taken that should not have been taken in the pursuit of doctrinal purity.
There is another concern we want to raise with you, and for us it is a foundational one. It has to do with the attitude of graciousness and love, the spirit of humility and trust that is supposed to animate us in our relationships as brothers in Christ. We refer to an attitude or set of the heart that shows itself in gentleness and peaceableness in practical ways — such as in the give-and-take of argument — and is supposed to mark us as followers of Jesus even when we have concerns about a brother’s character or teaching.
We do not fault you for being zealous for sound doctrine in the church of Jesus Christ. We expect nothing less from fellow presbyters charged with teaching and guarding the apostolic Faith. But zeal for sound doctrine that is not animated by a sincere love of the brothers in our heart, a humility in our tone, gentleness and reasonableness in our arguments, and an overriding passion for peace as well as truth — a zeal without those characteristics is a most dangerous thing. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up, the Apostle Paul warned the contentious Corinthian church. We will not speculate on the motives behind your letter; they may be different from signer to signer. But our Catechism says we break the 9th commandment when we treat one another with “scornful contempt.” Many of us in Missouri Presbytery are not bloggers and do not do not regularly read theology on the internet. However, we have become deeply concerned about reports that a great deal of the Federal Vision controversy being debated on various Reformed websites is full of acerbic comments, insults, sarcasm, rancor — all of which seem to fit under the Catechism’s term, scornful contempt.
Many of us in Missouri Presbytery have a new sensitivity to this matter of attitude, and to the tone in our discourse that flows out of it; and we want to assure you that we have already taken steps to warn our own presbyters against the danger of being shrill and angry in their theological exchanges, of exuding contempt for their antagonists that is derisive and disparaging. We would raise the question with you: Do you not feel, along with us, that there is great danger in pursuing doctrinal purity in a spirit of anger and a tone of scorn? It is clear that some of you men have very sharp minds and a keen understanding of our precious Reformed doctrinal heritage, and that all of you — by virtue of signing these allegations — have a passion for the sovereign working of God’s grace that alone accomplishes our salvation. We have the same passion; so how can we encourage each other to aim for a higher level of discourse; to see more humility and civility and grace in our theological arguments — arguments which are necessary — so that we all do not become, unwittingly, part of a pattern of divisiveness that does not promote true purity in Christ’s church but on the contrary, undermines her peace and unity and sets back the cause of guarding sound doctrine? We grieve the Holy Spirit when we neglect the precious unity of the body that Christ died to make one and indivisible; and the Apostle Paul warns us against “biting and devouring one another” — or we will be destroyed by one another. Is there not too much of this biting and devouring going on among us in these internet debates?
The attitude we long to see more fully formed in you, and in us here — in all of us who are redeemed sons of God — is put well by that godly Anglican pastor of the late 18th century, Charles Simeon, who wrote the following, because he understood his own tendency, as a fallen son of Adam, to thrive on the putting down of another person. Under the heading of, “How to Cope With Evil Speaking,” he expresses well the warnings of WLC questions #144 and #145 regarding God’s law in the 9th commandment when he wrote:
The longer I live, the more I feel the importance of adhering to the rules which I have laid down for myself in relation to such matters:
1st To hear as little as possible what is to the prejudice of [=against] others.
2nd To believe nothing of the kind till Jam absolutely forced to it.
3rd Never to drink into the spirit of one who circulates an ill report.
4th Always to moderate as far as I can, the unkindness which is expressed toward others.
5th Always to believe, that of the other side were heard, a very different account would be given of the matter. . . .The more prominent any person’s character is, the more likely he is to suffer in this way [i.e., to be spoken badly of]; there being in the heart of every man unless greatly subdued by grace, a pleasure in hearing anything which may sink others to his level, or lower them in the estimation of the world. We seem to regard ourselves elevated in proportion as others are depressed [=diminished]. (Hugh Evan Hopkins, Charles Simeon of Cambridge, [Eerdmans, 1977], 134)
In conclusion, we would ask you to consider carefully your own actions and attitudes, as we are trying to do here with ours, so that we all might better avoid the danger of contributing to an atmosphere in the PCA much like the one lamented by an early church father, who wrote these comments with great sadness and frustration many centuries ago:
My mind leads me (since there is no other remedy) to run away and get myself into some corner out of sight, where I may escape from this cloudy tempest of maliciousness, whereby all parties are entered into a deadly war among themselves; and that little remnant of love which was, is now consumed to nothing. The only godliness we glory in, is to find out something whereby we may judge others to be ungodly. Each other’s faults we observe as matter of condemnation and not of grief By these means we have become hated in the eyes of heathens themselves, and — which wounds us more deeply — we cannot deny but that we have deserved their hatred With the better sort of our own our reputation and credibility are clean lost. . . . On our backs also build those who are lewd,’ and what we object against each other they use to scorn and disgrace us all, This is what we have gained by our mutual, internal, dissensions. This is the reward we are worthy of we who are more eager to strive with each other than to become men of virtuous and mild disposition. (Gregory of Nazianzus, Second Oration, cited in the Preface to Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity [London: George Rutledge, 1888], 57, slightly paraphrased for vocabulary and syntax)
May the crucified, risen and ascended Lord of glory, the One who is also gentle and humble in heart, grant you true insight and humility as you consider these things. And may we all look to our faults, and before anything else, grieve over them, and especially grieve over what we regard as faults in others.
In service of our Chief Shepherd, Jesus,
Ron Lutjens, Moderator
on behalf of the Presbytery
