And now this day, Sunday, January 16, 2011, TE M. Jay Bennett and TE Joseph E. Rolison come and complain against the action of Missouri Presbytery on January 8, 2011, in determining that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Jeffrey Meyers in the areas of covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance, and justification. We offer the following reasons:
- Missouri Presbytery erred because it was biased against the signers of the letter of concern, which led to the investigation. The investigation began in the context of accusing the signers of the Letter of Concern with violating the Ninth Commandment and stating, “The good name of TE Jeffrey Meyers has already been dishonored.” This statement indicates that these men thought that the allegations were false before they conducted an investigation. In addition, they demonstrated that they thought the signers had sinned in sending the letter to them: “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.” This was contrary to the letter’s insistence that we should contact someone directly before we make such allegations. Thus, the Presbytery clearly erred from the outset by applying a standard to the signers that they did not even apply to themselves.
- Missouri Presbytery erred because it did not properly weigh the evidence. According to the Missouri Presbytery Investigative Committee Report (MICR), “Context, emphasis, purpose, and considering the full corpus of a [sic] what a person has written and taught are all crucial factors in accurately interpreting the meaning of his individual statements” (MICR, 24, emphasis original). However on several points the committee did not demonstrate that they properly considered the full corpus and context of Meyers’ writings.
- TE Meyers signed the Joint Federal Vision Profession (JFVP) in 2007 as a representation of his “honest convictions” (p. 1). In addition, the MICR page 108 states that TE Meyers helped compose the JFVP. But the committee said: “We believe TE Meyers’ own words should be given precedence over the conjectures that can be drawn from broad statements contained in the JFVP.” The committee wrongly downplayed the words in the JFVP contrary to their own document and the rules of evidence.
- The MICR demonstrates a failure to take into account the work and writings of Federal Vision proponent James Jordan. In the “Introduction and Acknowledgements” of Meyers’ book The Lord’s Service, he writes:
But Jim Jordan does not really need to be singled out. One does not need to read between the lines in this book to see his influence on every page. My book is largely a popularization of his profound biblical, theological, and liturgical insights. So deeply has James Jordan’s work affected my thought and life that I suspect many parts come perilously close to plagiarism. (Jeffrey Meyers, The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2003] 11)
Meyers’ dependence on Jordan should have been given at least as much weight as Meyers’ citations of Calvin, O. Palmer Robertson, and others.
- Similarly, Meyers claims that his views on the covenant are derived from such men as John Murray and O. Palmer Robertson. However, if we take Meyers’ full corpus into account, we should note that on page 40 of his book The Lord’s Service, in the chapter titled “Covenant and Worship,” Meyers cites Murray and Robertson, but he also cites James Jordan, Norman Shepherd, and Cornelis van der Waal as examples of “recent advances in biblical theology.” The committee’s investigation does not demonstrate giving any weight to these “crucial factors.”
- Missouri Presbytery erred because it failed to address the specific doctrinal allegations precisely. In the section on perseverance, the Presbytery erred because they exonerated him of something that was not alleged. They said that there was insufficient evidence for a strong presumption of guilt in the doctrine of the “perseverance of the elect.” However, the allegation was that baptism effects a saving, covenantal union with all the baptized and that some who are united to Christ in this way do fall away. This is different from saying that the elect persevere. The question was whether there were those who are reprobate who are saved out of a state of sin and misery and into a position of grace but fall away. The same can be said of the section on covenant theology. The fact that TE Meyers says “I do not believe that the prelapsarian covenant is the same as the postlapsarian covenants” (MICR 54) does not address the question of whether TE Meyers affirms the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards. If it did, then it would mean that Meyers believed in more than two covenants because he listed more than two here. However, the committee did not give any indication that it dealt with his affirmation that the covenants before and after the fall were the same covenant as the one into which man was created and into which he was saved:
The covenant is, therefore, not simply an external means, not merely a remedial arrangement by which God accomplishes salvation for fallen men, rather it is also the goal of creation. He created us for and now saves us to participate in his covenantal life. The Persons of the Trinity possess the fullness of life and blessedness as they love and serve one another sacrificially” (“Trinity & Covenant, Part VI,” Corrigenda Denuo, 8/31/2007, for the same terminology see “Trinity & Covenant, Part IV,” Corrigenda Denuo, 8/22/2007).
This should have led to a much more careful explanation of the senses in which Meyers believe there is one covenant and the senses in which he believes there is more than one. (Note: James Jordan gives an explanation of this in his article “Monocovenantalism” on Biblical Horizons, and echoes of Jordan’s view are found in fn. 7 on p. 46 of The Lord’s Service).
- Missouri Presbytery erred because it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt in views that are contrary to the Standards and consequently failed in its duty to condemn erroneous doctrines and practices that injure the peace, purity, and unity of the Church.
- Missouri Presbytery erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in TE Meyers’ views on covenant theology. TE Meyers stated:
I do think the latest scholarly work in biblical theology demands that we go back and redo a great deal of the Westminster standards. They were written when people still thought of the covenant as a contract and believed that “merit” had some role to play in our covenantal relations with God. The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go. And if that goes, the whole “system” must be reworked. (MICR, 67)
TE Meyers confesses this as a “sin of overstatement” (66), but he did not retract his statement that the “bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has to go.” On the contrary, he states in The Lord’s Service, “The covenant has not been adequately appreciated or understood until recently” (52). He also stated on October 7, 2007: I do not believe that I am required to believe and confess all the details in the confessions and catechism. Nor am I bound to their form. The chapter on the covenant, for example, is filled with problems. So much progress has been made in the last century on the biblical theology of the covenants (Corrigenda Denuo).
- Missouri Presbytery erred when it determined that there was not sufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in the teaching of TE Meyers on the imputation of Christ’s merit. The committee also exonerated him of something here of which he was never accused, namely, “the necessity of Christ’s perfect obedience.” The question was whether Christ’s righteousness includes His meriting of God’s favor and eternal life for us through His perfect obedience. The question also involves whether Christ’s merits are legally transferred to our account. Meyers clearly denies that this is the case. Meyers stated: “What I do have a problem with is speaking of the works of Christ during his life in such a way that he is thought to have racked up points to earn God’s favor according to some fictional, still-in-force-after-the-fall, strict-justice covenant of works, and that these merits are then transferred to Christians” (De Regno Christi, 9/28/2008). Meyers confirms this view on pp. 81, 92, 105 of the MICR. Further, it should be noted that Chad Van Dixhoorn, who is cited as an authority by the committee, has stated in his article on the Larger Catechism, “Christ’s life has everything to do with our salvation: he spent his life fulfilling all righteousness; he kept the law that Adam broke. It is because of Jesus’ active, lifelong obedience that God the Father sees us as righteous in Christ” (New Horizons).
- Missouri Presbytery erred when it determined that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in TE Meyers’ teachings on baptism. On January 28, 2008, TE Meyers stated, “Baptism unites us to Christ and therefore makes us participate in the circumcision of Christ,” and, “Baptism unites us to Christ so that we can be said to have died and to have risen with him” (Biblical Horizons). The committee sites the language of WCF 28.1 that baptism is a seal of our union with Christ as evidence that this is legitimate. But that which seals or confirms something is not that which effects it (cf. WCF 14.1). On the contrary, the WCF teaches that the Spirit unites us to Christ in our effectual calling which happens through the instrumentality of the Word (WCF 10.1, cf. WCF 14.1). Meyers’ error is confirmed in the MICR 113-115 and JFVP 5, 7.
- Missouri Presbytery erred when it determined that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in TE Meyers in the doctrine of perseverance. The JFVP states: “All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life” (JFVP, 7). According to Meyers, this covenantal life is “From eternity the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a fullness of covenantal life, love, glory in their personal relations with one another; and it is this covenantal personal fellowship of the Trinity that is the life of the covenant into which we are graciously admitted” (Trinity & Covenant IV, Corrigenda Denuo, 8/22/2007). Thus someone who falls away falls from a position of grace in the covenant. This is exactly what the JFVP goes on to affirm. “All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace” (JFVP, 7, cf. CD, 12/15/2007). Meyers states, “They may receive certain benefits temporarily, but the saving benefits (in the fullest sense of that phrase) are reserved for the elect who are gifted with true, saving faith” (MICR 65). But this was never the question. The question is whether there is a salvation less than the fullest, eternal sense, such as a position of grace that the baptized reprobate participate in but later lose. All his qualifications of saving benefits never going to the reprobate are negated because it is not clear in what sense he is speaking. On the contrary, it is clear that TE Meyers believes that the reprobate receive benefits that cannot fit into our theological system, and we agree that what he says does not fit in our theological system (cf. “Temporary Faith & Forgiveness,” Corrigenda Denuo, December 15, 2007, MICR 112).
- Missouri Presbytery erred when it determined that there was insufficient evidence that there was a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Meyers in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. All of Meyers affirmations of justification by faith alone are negated by his affirmation that “personal loyalty” describes the fiduciary aspect of faith. This is exactly what the signers of the LOC alleged, and Meyers confirmed that what they said was true. “Living trust” is not a plausible understanding of “personal loyalty” as both the context of the JFVP and the comments on one of the documents submitted to Missouri Presbytery indicate (e.g. “Trinity & Covenant VI,” Corrigenda Denuo, 8/31/2007). Further, the committee also did not demonstrate that they wrestled with the issues involved in Meyers’ exposition of the Publican and the Pharisee, which he wrote on The Wrightsaid Group on August 31, 2002 and qualified on December 30, 2010 (weswhite.net ).
- Missouri Presbytery erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in TE Meyers’ views on covenant theology. TE Meyers stated:
Amends:
- That Missouri Presbytery acknowledge its error in not finding a strong presumption of guilt in TE Jeffrey Meyers’ teachings on covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance, and justification.
- That Missouri Presbytery determine that there is a strong presumption of guilt in Jeffrey Meyers’ teachings on covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance, and justification.
Wow, pictures and all! I can’t believe how fast this all happened, it’s almost as if it was pre-planned. But it couldn’t have been, could it?
Concerned Presbyter, just because it took MOP five days to put up a single pdf, doesn’t mean that it takes that long. If I get a document, I can put it up in a few minutes. It’s called instant publishing.
Nevertheless, I received this document after it was sent to MOP. I did plan to put it up after the MOP meeting.
In addition, I asked a friend of mine to attend MOP so I could know what happened. He gave me a call and told me what happened. I typed it out and put it up on the web.
It’s really amazing how we have these devices that enable us to communicate instantly over long distances. Welcome to the 21st century!:)
I’m not sure I understand the point of the previous poster. All of the points that are made in the complaint are similar to ones that several people made here since the exoneration documents were published. It doesn’t take much time to see that the LOC concerns were valid based on the documentation available.
Well, well, well, it looks like our sappy presbyter is showing his real teeth: First he appeared to sell us MOP’s whitewash with his super-sanctimonious drivel; now he’s a cynic to the bone, pretending as though Google images doesn’t exist.
Tell us, ACP, when MOP planned to whitewash Meyers’ heterodoxy, did you have the foresight to plan today’s stonewall?
And please tell us what dirty cards you hid up your sleeve for the time when two presbyteries petition GA to assume original jurisdiction?
Barlow, you are very welcome to comment here. However, I would ask you to give arguments and not mere assertions as I noted in my guidelines for comments # 3.
Concerned Presbyter,
Wow, lousy transparent whitewash and all! I can’t believe how fast the MOP Meyers coverup happened. It’s almost as if it were pre-planned! But it couldn’t have been, could it?
Please be serious if you’re going to pretend to be so Concerned. It’s not as if no one could have reasonably anticipated exactly what MOP would do. Maybe the Ninth-Breaking LOC Signers actually knew what they were complaining about and had documentation. Maybe the courageous men who complained against MOP can read JW and the analysis of the decision. Crowd-sourcing is your friend, Concerned. Maybe there was already a template for this scenario that was observed in LAP.
People who are really concerned and who are wise do something called contingency planning in the Real World, which I’m beginning to think is totally discontinuous with the Church World, at least in some places, like in Concerned’s neighborhood.
For the following reasons I think the complaint should not be sustained. I know this probably means someone will appeal to the SJC, but I think we all saw that it was going there eventually anyway.
My numbers below refer to the complaint’s numbers:
2a – The MOP’s principle is simple common sense; they have to go with what Meyers says to them, not with a statement that he signed. This is because the federal vision statement doesn’t interpret itself; what matters is what Meyers thinks, and so they have to ask him, and then base their conclusions of what he believes based on what he says.
2b – This point borders on irrelevancy because it trades in guilt by association. Jordan believes the wrong things, Jeff shows fealty to Jordan, therefore Jeff believes the wrong things. But that is a bit like calling Trent Lott a racist because he said some nice things about Strom Thurmond at his birthday part.
2c – Again, the point borders on irrelevancy because it trades in guilt by association. The fact that Jordan cites Van der Waal is only bad if Van der Waal is wrong at the points quoted. Same thing with Jordan and Shephard. The complaint doesn’t cite examples where Meyers is wrong or where the persons cited are wrong on the point at issue.
3 – MO may have missed the precise wording of the exoneration, but Meyers’s own words exonerate him. He doesn’t attribute to temporizers a true salvation and is very clear about this. See page It is just to wonder if Missouri understood the allegation properly, but even beside the committee’s failure to word their exoneration correctly, fortunately they asked him very clearly about his views on temporizers and he says: “The reprobate apostate does not lose eternal salvation, regeneration, justification, and a vital union with Christ by saving faith; rather, he loses many gracious gifts as well as a covenanted connection with Christ and his people in the church.” (131) The temporizer does not lose ordo-salutis stuff like “regeneration, justification, vital union with Christ by saving faith” etc. How much plainer could he be there? He even italicized this sentence. If he was trying to be disingenuous, why call attention to it? At least he thought he was being emphatic and clear about this. He says elsewhere: “I deny that the benefits enjoyed by non-elect apostates up until the time that they apostasize are identical to the benefits received by elect members of the covenant…” (77).
4a – Meyers believes in two covenants, he just doesn’t believe in the precise covenant theology preferred by the bringers of the complaint (a meritorious prelapsarian covenant of works). Westminster doesn’t hammer this down precisely as modern adherents to this kind of federalism seem to anyway, and Meyers believes everything Westminster affirms, from what I can tell by comparing his answers in the report with the minimal confession required by Westminster. – See http://tinyurl.com/4p5x2q2 where Mark does a good job of showing exactly what Westminster says about Adam. In addition, Meyers’s exceptions to a more Klinean approach to the covenant of works have existed for his entire ministry and have been allowed by three different presbyteries. The tradition of the PCA is on Meyers’s side.
4b – For this issue, Van Dixhoorn is quoted in order to undermine Meyers’s reliance on Van Dixhoorn to support his skepticism about some ways of formulating the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. But logically, it doesn’t matter if Van Dixhoorn believes that imputation of active obedience is important, it only matters what his historical research shows – that there was diversity on this point at the Assembly. Meyers uses Van Dixhoorn to show that a variety of opinions were allowed, he has one of the allowed opinions, ergo, he cannot be accused of believing the wrong things on this issue.
4c – Meyers is very clear what baptism does and does not do in his replies to the committee’s first round of questions. First, he cites precedents for talking about baptism in even stronger ways than he is willing to do (pg. 57 – Knox). He formulates the question that is on everyone’s mind very clearly: “What is included in this formal union?” the union that is effected between all the covenanted and Christ. And his answer comes on pages 58 and following. The answer is pastoral and careful. Yes, Meyers grants that there is some kind of union between even temporizers and Christ. But his theology of apostasy has already been seen in point 3 above. What Meyers is unwilling to do is to make baptism a mere communicative act. “Sign and seal” have been turned into “sign” and “authenticated sign” and have certainly led to many who want to take all the mystery out of baptism and hammer down exactly what God does and does not do in baptism. I think Meyers, although differing substantively from the complaintants, acquits his view very well, preserves mystery, makes a qualitative difference between the baptism of the elect and the baptism of the non-elect, and gives a workable synthesis of scriptural and confessional precedents. MO Presbytery agreed, and the complaintants disagreed, but surely this is a place, of all places, where reformed people can agree to disagree. Especially given that the reasons the complaintants want to hold their line appears to be a bevy of other concerns (like apostasy) that Meyers stands with them on.
4d – Meyers is very clear in his responses to the committee’s rounds of questioning about temporizers, and I addressed this in point 3 above.
4e – Meyers is very clear that he is distinguishing between true and false faith, he is not trying to be specific and attribute anything in the creature to the means of justification – “Faith itself is not something you offer to God to become good enough to be worthy of his friendship, but rather a means by which you are united to Christ so that his sacrifice and righteousness is reckoned to you by God’s gracious declaration.” (pg. 99). And whatever we want to impute to the FV statement concerning “personally loyal faith,” for Meyers, it means “simply to define genuine faith over against false or superficial belief” (98).
For these reasons, I think the complaint fails in its appeal of Missouri’s exoneration of Meyers. Now, as for point 1 of the complaint and all that ninth commandment business, they may have a point; I haven’t thought through those issues in much depth.
Barlow, thank you for taking the time to set forth your arguments more fully and participating in this discussion on this blog.
On 2c, I would ask a question, how close is Jeff Meyers to James Jordan? You seem to know Meyers well. In The Lord’s Service, Meyers says concerning Jordan, “So deeply has James Jordan’s work affected my thought and life that I suspect many parts come perilously close to plagiarism.” Meyers has associated himself with Jordan. This summer he spoke at James Jordan’s “Sex and Death” conference in Florida.
Here’s what James Jordan said on July 14, 2009:
Don’t you see it as a problem that Jeff Meyers is dependent upon and associates closely with a man who has such an opinion?
Barlow,
Here’s what James Jordan said on July 14, 2009 in his post “Rome? Why Bother?”:
You do a good job, Barlow, of avoiding the question. The question is not whether the SJC is a good thing. The question is whether the SJC has abused its power in a way that is akin to Rome’s abuses of power (such as murder) that caused the Reformation: “The Papists at the time of the Reformation pulled various power games to suppress the Reformers. At that time, this included murder.” The question is not whether we have idolatries, the question is whether the idolatries of Rome and of the PCA are equivalent to the degree that if some young man leaves the PCA and goes into the Roman Catholic Church, he is not making much of a change. That’s a serious accusation.
Now, let me notice a few things here. When a commenter said on Jordan’s post “Rome? Why Bother?”:
Meyers replied:
Why was Meyers quick to defend Jordan but not to defend the PCA when it was attacked so viciously by Jordan?
We should also note that Jordan continued to make the same sort of comments on the thread (Rome? Why Bother?) in which Meyers commented:
He also accused churches that use grape juice rather than wine in communion as being “faith-less”:
The point is that the subcommittee investigating process and injurious reports dissected every detail of what the signers of the LOC did when they made their accusations. The fact that the theological committee did not even consider Jordan or mention in him the report is a serious oversight and inconsistent with their dissection of the signers’ actions.
Contrary to your assertion, Mr. Jordan repeats his statements and accusations over and over. They cannot be interpreted as hyperbole, as you claim, but rather Mr. Jordan’s constant assertion and negative opinion of the PCA. The fact that you have to change the arguments indicates to me that your reply is weak.
Sorry about point 3, “See page” was something I started to type, but moved to another sentence and forgot to delete.
Forgive me for not adding to the discussion, but this complaint is great. Even if it accomplishes nothing in MOP’s findings, it perfectly exposes MOP’s clear bias from the beginning. God bless these men.
Barlow is right. This is going to the SJC.
Wes,
This is good news. Thanks for posting the complaint so promptly. Overall excellent complaint that catches the essence of our original LOC, something MOP simply glossed over. I’ll try to take time to answer barlow’s points above. Not difficult, but don’t have time enough remaining tonight.
Bob
Tony, thanks for clarifying what you mean by agreeing with Barlow saying, “This is going to the SJC.”.
Jordan has an annual Biblical Horizons conference and this year’s theme was “Sex and Death” because a. those topics were addressed by various speakers and b. he is being funny and provocative. I feel like you’re trading on the title of the conference to make it sound like something weird. Basically it had lectures, like any other bible conference, and it was about things the bible talks about. They went to the beach. They worshipped. They fellowshipped. It was like Twin Lakes conference only at the beach and it was more about biblical theology than church planting.
The fact that Jordan believes the PCA is dead doesn’t mean that Jeff Meyers believes that. Lots of people have friends that say things they don’t agree with.
Proverbs says that a wise man can learn something even from the words of a fool. How much more can a wise man learn from a provocative, eccentric man who loves the Bible and reads it very carefully even though he occasionally makes hyperbolic statements about the demise of presbyterianism?
Again, it’s just fallacious to charge a man based on the people he’s friends with. I would think it rather ignoble to throw a friend under a bus just to please a guy in some other presbytery who brings an accusation. Jeff owes Jordan the loyalty and kindness of friendship, and it is his right to say hard things to Jordan in private if he likes, and we have no idea whether he’s done this or not. I wouldn’t expect him to say anything about it in public. And Jeff’s beliefs are the ones at issue. I find it nearly impossible to believe that Jeff would have had any of Jordan’s polemical comments about the PCA in mind when he expressed the degree of influence of Jordan’s work on his work. He was thinking about worship and about reading the Bible on its own terms, two of the things Jordan has emphasized.
I think also that we’d be foolish to not listen to Jordan’s statement and ask ourselves whether there is any justice to his complaints, even as hyperbolic as they are. Has our SJC been a good thing? What idolatries are we cherishing in the PCA even while pretending that all the idolatry is on Rome’s side? Calvin said our hearts our idol factories. What are the PCA’s idols?
Wes,
Perhaps you might also post a few notes about some other news at the meeting.
For instance, how respectfully TE Bennett was treated today. In fact, some Presbyters wished to inquire about how the complaint came into being and the moderator ruled the question out of order and was sustained in his view by the floor.
You might also note that today’s meeting was “providentially” scheduled to be hosted at Providence Presbyterian Church and that TE Bennett was welcomed.
You might also note that TE Bennett was not present when the complaint came onto the floor for business and that Presbyter’s cordially tabled the matter so that he could arrive and speak to it on the floor.
Just making sure all the news is out there.
Grace,
Concerned Presbyter
I will write on all those points tomorrow. Thanks for the update.
Wes,
I would humbly suggest that a blog is not the place to discuss a *pending* judicial matter. I would hope that no Presbyter of Missouri Presbytery would be commenting on this (or any other) blog, and if he did, he would recuse himself from deliberating on the Complaint.
Concerned,
Interesting how differently MOP treats one of its own officers vs. how they treated the 29 PCA officers who signed the original LOC. Did they accuse TEs Bennett or Rolison of violating the 9th Commandment? Will MOP follow-up with a secret executive session to compose an accusatory letter to them before conducting an investigation of their complaint?
Pastor Greco
“I would hope that no Presbyter of Missouri Presbytery would be commenting on this (or any other) blog, and if he did, he would recuse himself from deliberating on the Complaint.”
Can you please explain why you think recusing one self would be necessary if a Presbyter simply commented on this blog. Specifically, do your beliefs stem from the nature of complaints in general or does it have to do with matters of discipline in general or do you think that the SJC rules apply to all Presbyters?
Thank you
Perhaps I am a little behind on the discussion as to how quickly this complaint came back. While this is a discussion that has gone on for some time, and no doubt many of us could have, through a cursory reading of the MOP decision, come up with several objections, I am sure that many were expecting this decision, and were no doubt already in the process of putting together a rightly ordered complaint. But on a personal note, as a former classmate and continued friend of Mr. Rolison, it is no surprise that he was able to develop this complaint with the speed and accuracy that he did given the fact that he was already very well-versed in his understanding of the errors of NPP/FV when most of us had no idea that it even existed. In reading this complaint I hear the thoroughness of a heart and mind that are merely seeking to uphold the honor of Christ and the integrity of His Church by quickly righting the obvious wrong of this presbytery.
“I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth” (Revelation 3:14).
God sees through this political shell game.
Dean B,
I think that the SJC Manual rules are implicit in the BCO, as expressed in BCO 32-17, which, while it is expressly about cases of process, is in conformity with judicial rules both ecclesiastical and civil:
“32-17. Pending the trial of a case, any member of the court who shall
express his opinion of its merits to either party, or to any person not a
member of the court; or who shall absent himself from any sitting without the
permission of the court, or satisfactory reasons rendered, shall be thereby
disqualified from taking part in the subsequent proceedings.”
Dean, Fred is correct and I did not consider this until he pointed it out, but none involved in a pending case is permitted to discuss the matter. This does not mean you cannot discuss it but it only precludes those elders from MO Presbytery. There have been a couple men on this blog from MO Presbytery that should not be discussing the case.
barlow says, “Again, it’s just fallacious to charge a man based on the people he’s friends with.”
This is true but the friends that a man keeps are not insignificant when judging his character.
God’s Word warns: Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” 1Co 15:33 NASB
A wise man is careful about the friends he keeps.
“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! … The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Psa 1:1, 4 NASB
Barlow is correct, not only will this complaint go to the SJC, but “we all saw that it was going there eventually anyway.” However, there are other variables in this case that were not there when the SJC heard a virtually identical complaint against the LAP in reference to their twice exoneration of Wilkins. Two of those variables are David Coffin and Bryan Chapell. We already have some experience with at least one of those variables and how it affected the outcome of one SJC decision. Another is the positions of many of those who put their names on the MOP’s decision clearing Meyers on all counts. Perhaps this is where that other unknown variable might come into play.
I think Barlow has some reason to be encouraged.
My understanding of SJC rules is that when a case comes before the SJC any member of that presbytery must recuse himself.
Chapell is a member of Iliana Presbytery. He rarely if ever goes, but he is a member.
Still and all, it would be hard for him to argue that he has enough distance from Jeff to render accurate judgment.
Of course, according to Mo Presbytery, close kinship with a (purported) heretic is actually a good thing, because, you know, they are immune to being blinded by affinity, unlike the rest of us poor sinners. Lady Justice can peek out from under that blindfold, because, hey, we’re good guys, not subject to human frailty.
I want to take a moment to commend TE M. Jay Bennett and TE Joseph E. Rolison for filing the complaint, as well as TEs Charles Kuykendall and Sean Sawyers for joining it.
It’s easy to wax bold in comboxes; it’s not so easy to confront a room full of men hell bent on doing the wrong thing, and for this I applaud you brothers.
Thomas,
I heartily agree, and would like to add my thanks and commendation to these courageous and wise men. They are putting it all on the line in every way–positions, reputations, friendships, and possibly even family relationships may suffer because of their stand. May many others join them in this fight for the pure gospel.
Thomas: while I’m grateful for these men willingness to stand up for their convictions, it does seem a bit over the top to describe the others has hell bent on doing the wrong thing. Such comments really do delve into areas of motive and intent, assuming the worst of brothers.
Debate the merits of their actions by all means. Beyond that I’d urge all to not go.
Hi Eileen,
I wasn’t going to go there because, having confronted a corrupt presbytery myself, I am familiar with all the dynamics involved, including the strong possibility that one or more of the complainants could cave under pressure — and rest assured that MOP will apply pressure at every vulnerable point possible. As you say, families, jobs, reputations — corrupt men are never at a loss to find new ways of intimidation, because as the saying goes, “Everyone can be gotten to.”
And in case any MOPers are reading this, you should be ashamed of yourselves for exonerating a man who affirms works-righteousness (see Meyers’ interpretation of The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican; make sure you’re not drunk). Your works say everything anyone needs to know about you.
Thomas,
Unfortunately, the process I was describing happens outside the PCA, too. When I wrote the comment, I was remembering a personal experience similar to this one which was not in the PCA, so we need to be in prayer for men who are laboring for the purity of the gospel in other ways in other parts of Christ’s church. I pray that many more will step forward and join with these men and that MOP as a whole will reconsider and repent.