Foothills Community Church
3510 Avalanche Rd
Sturgis, SD 57785
www.foothillspca.net
To the Missouri Presbytery of the PCA,
We are writing you as a session to respond to your letter dated April 27, 2010. In that letter you accuse a member of our session, RE Terry Altstiel, of violations of the Ninth Commandment in affixing his name to the letter concerning TE Jeff Meyers. RE Altstiel felt himself aggrieved by this accusation and requested that the session of Foothills do a BCO 31-2 investigation. We are writing you to inform you of the results of our investigation.
We find that RE Altstiel did not confer with TE Meyers prior to signing the letter because he had no duty to confer privately with TE Meyers, since TE Meyers’ worrisome statements were public and general in nature. BCO 29-2 through 29-4 detail the differences between personal and general offenses, as well as private vs. public offenses. We commend that section of the BCO to your further study.
Secondly, while we do not find it particularly disorderly that the letter was published on The Aquila Report, we find that RE Altstiel had no knowledge of the publishing of the letter. This was done by persons unknown to RE Altstiel.
Thirdly, we rejoice at your zeal for the Larger Catechism’s exposition of the Ninth Commandment. Truth is indeed a precious commodity in today’s world. It is our understanding that the letter was presented to your presbytery without the supporting rationale, entitled “Ways TE Meyers Opposes the Standards.” We also are told that it was only sent to the senior pastors in the presbytery. Thus several men were not able to read the letter for themselves before your stated meeting, and most did not have access to the statements made by TE Meyers which were so alarming and provided the impetus for the letter in the first place. Since TE Meyers is a signatory of the “Joint Federal Vision Statement,” and since he has publicly said the things he said, we respectfully ask the members of the Missouri Presbytery to examine themselves and consider whether or not the presbytery has violated the Ninth Commandment in its handling of this matter. Of particular concern is whether the presbytery’s handling of this matter violated the Ninth Commandment by:
prejudicing the truth. . . . outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked . . . concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others . . . fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
As we are not members of your court we wish to inform you that we are not bound by your executive session. We do not consider this a private matter.
Kindest Regards,
RE Ron Beug,
Clerk of Session (Pro Temp)
Foothills PCA
Sturgis, SD
The truth is we have a rogue presbytery, and it’s not Foothills. Missouri Presbytery has declared itself publicly to be out of accord with the standards of discipline found in the BCO by making the unbiblical ex post facto requirement that dealing with false public teaching conform to Matthew 18.
They need to be called on the carpet on that.
Ah yes, that tricky other half of the Larger Catechism on the 9th commandment.
Ninth Commandment hot potato. I like it.
One minor point. The FV statement which Meyers and his fellow pastors, including PCA pastor Mark Horne, signed is titled; “A Joint Federal Vision Profession.” I think it odd that Meyers would complain in the combox on another thread that others have presumed to know what he believes when he told us when he signed this blatantly anti-Christian profession of faith. Among the many notable exceptions to the Reformed standards Meyer admits he is “confessionally bound” to, standards clearly no one in the MO Pres will hold him to, are:
And,
Besides the obvious repudiation of the Reformed doctrine of perseverance in the first quote, no Reformed confessional standard, whether it’s the 3 Forms or the WCF maintains that all baptized persons are “united with Christ in His covenantal life.” Further, the PCA’s FV/NPP report states in point 6; “The view that water baptism effects a ‘covenantal union’ with Christ … is contrary to the Westminster Standards.”
Notice, Meyers denies justification by faith alone and says so. Instead of simple belief which passively receives and rests on Christ, the faith Meyers affirms and that which he believes saves is “active” and INCLUDES personal loyalty.
Meyers denies that the gospel message includes the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ.” Yet, the PCA’s FV/NPP report maintains “The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.”
Notice, Meyers believes that one can have genuine faith in Jesus Christ while denying the doctrine of sola fide. Make sense, because he certainly does.
Examples like this can be multiplied many times over, but instead of dealing with what Meyers says he believes the MO Pres spends its time calling for Ninth Commandment investigations against anyone and everyone who would point out the gross and deadly heresies of one of their own. What a farce.
It’s heartening to find that Metro Men haven’t made it to the Dakotas yet where there are real men who will not yield to intimidation attempts ;o)
I do hear that Wes is whipping up a wicked micro-brew in his basement.
There’s just something wrong with the name: John Wesley Ale, though. I thought it was supposed to be Reformed beer.
“I do hear that Wes is whipping up a wicked micro-brew in his basement.”
Instead of “All Souls Ale” he is calling it “Particular Souls Ale”.
Signing one’s name to the Joint Federal Vision Statement is a declaration that one is preaching and teaching views that are contrary to the WCF as declared in the FV study committee report. However, when it comes to disciplining an elder, there is no recourse because the study report only offers recommendations – not requirements. Therefore, it appears that the MO presbytery is under no obligation to the 29 elders to investigate the views of TE Meyers.
At this point, it is clear from TE Meyers’ signature, that he holds views which the PCA has declared as contrary to the Standards. But as long as he remains with impunity as an elder in good standing in the PCA, his views are the accepted views of the PCA. The PCA cannot serve two masters: they either hate the one or love the other.
Lauren- I agree. However, the FV guys that I have spoken to don’t believe that the PCA’s report accurately describes them at all. According to them, their views are not contrary to the Standards.
Rachel, it doesn’t matter what the FV men say, or better claim. Lauren is right the PCA’s FV/NPP report is a paper tiger. It was an opportunity for the leadership in the PCA to do theater. They pretended to actually do something to thwart the spread of the FV false gospel and we are all fools to think they would do anything more. Meanwhile, those who are doing something, the real fools in all this, are being falsely charged with violations of the Ninth Commandant while the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of PCA TEs and REs — not to mention the forgotten Deacons — stand idly by and do nothing hoping against hope that all this will all blow over.
Let’s face it, besides Wes White and maybe one other (the FV men have succeeded in muting Brian Carpenter after all) there has been and will be no real opposition to the FV in the PCA. Which is probably not totally fair as there may be one or … well, OK, maybe one, in the PNW Pres who still thinks the gospel is worth fighting for.
Rachel,
As the SJC pointed out in the Wilkins case, just because someone says their views are in accordance with Westminster doesn’t mean that they are. Those questionable views should still be subject to investigation and, if strong presumption of guilt exists that they are out of accord, trial.
The Foothills letter is excellent. It’s not a violation of the 9th Commandment to call public views into question. It’s a violation of the 9th Commandment NOT to call questionable public views into question. That’s part of the WLC that Missouri apparently missed, as Foothills kindly pointed out to them.
My friendly advice to Missouri? Don’t wait as long as LAP did to see the light.
By His grace,
Bob
I completely agree that FV is contrary to the WCF. I was just trying to illustrate how slippery these guys are.
There’s certainly plenty of evidence to back that assertion, Rachael. Beyond the public nonsense, there’s also the secret listservs, forums, etc. They abhor the light.