On Saturday, January 8, 2011, Missouri Presbytery had a called meeting to consider the report of the committee to investigate TE Jeffrey Meyers. All motions of the committee passed with some modifications. The presbytery concurred with the committee’s findings that there was no strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Meyers. Additionally, presbytery formed a commission to determine ways to communicate its conclusion with the goal of exonerating TE Meyers and restoring his reputation.
I will update this report as details become available.
Just a few initial thoughts as I’ve been having a particularly bad vertigo attack for the past two days.
First, this is disappointing but not particularly surprising. Given that MO presbytery’s first response to our letter was essentially to say “How Dare You!” and to express far more outrage that the letter had been sent and published than over any of its actual content, the possibility that they would respond favorably was always remote. Even when damning evidence was presented written by Jeffrey Meyers himself, the only questions that were asked concerned the provenance of the information. At no point did I sense the actual allegations were of any interest to the presbytery, their only questions to me ultimately concerned the perceived intentions and motivations of the signatories. From the very beginning, the sole concern seemed to be 1) the signatories and 2) how to protect “Jeffrey Meyer’s reputation.”
Second, MO presbytery seems to have officially adopted one of two possible positions:
i) Even though the PCA and the various denominations of NAPARC consider the FV to be a serious doctrinal error and even though the SJC concluded that LA Presbytery should have brought charges against Steve Wilkins for FV views that Jeffrey Meyers has also publicly espoused (often in Wilkins’ own pulpit at the Auburn Avenue Conferences), MO Presbytery does NOT consider the FV to be an error and profoundly disagrees with the views of the PCA GA.
or
ii) That despite the fact that he signed the Federal Vision declaration has spoken at Federal Vision conferences and is even identified by Wikipedia as a proponent of the Federal Vision, MO Presbytery does not believe that Jeffrey Meyers really is FV.
Hi Andy,
I believe there’s a third possibility that deserves consideration — namely, Missouri Presbytery recognized Jeffrey Meyers’ covenantal faithfulness as well as his humility and they counted him righteous.
Newsflash: Water is still wet.
Shame on Vander Maas, Lutjens and the whole blind company. And blind is a kind estimation of them.
Congratulations to the Missouri Presbytery! They are now on record as the PCA’s first official Federal Vision presbytery establishing Covenant Seminary as their flagship seminary. Add Knox Seminary and you now have a great motivation and encouragement for other presbyteries such as Pacific Northwest, Ohio Valley, and perhaps the Siouxlands to join them.
So much for the Federal Vision study report. FV elders and presbyteries only approved and used this toothless report as a guise to hide their false teaching. The PCA officially has their wolves in sheep’s clothing that are to be recognized as brothers in Christ because of their clothing and not their true nature. At least now true believers can leave the denomination in good conscience for another church and direct future pastors to another seminary.
First, he had to leave the Ohio Valley Presbytery because FV elders hounded and chased him out of Dodge. Then he had to leave the MO presbytery and the seminary for being the culprit who wrote the nine declarations against the FV. Will the Mississippi Valley prove to be his “city of refuge”?
These criticisms of Missouri Presbytery are premature. The detailed questioning of Meyers has been posted here (including all the follow-up questions and answers), but the committee also produced a lengthy explanation and assessment of Meyers’s answers to the questions that has not been published yet. Further, there is, I understand, going to be a very helpful consideration of the 9th commandment issues. All that has been posted here is some of the evidence the committee used to make its decision.
If you are disappointed after seeing the full case, so be it. Men can disagree about these things, just as men can disagree about the responsibility of the original letter writers vis a vis the ninth commandment. But a group of presbyters considered these issues concretely, and provided to presbytery (a will provide to the PCA at large) concrete reasons for their decision.
Rev. Webb, your dilemma considers two possibilities about MO Presbytery and “federal vision.” But all of the PCA’s documents so far have themselves been clear that there is no univocal “federal vision error” that a man has the opportunity to either accept or reject. A man’s beliefs have to be compared to what is acceptable and, if the man is vindicated, it may simply count against the heuristic value of the term “federal vision” and not against the process or the people involved in the process.
On a personal note, after reading these questions and answers, all I can say is “wow.” These are hard questions, and Meyers has been essentially asked to solve some of the perennial research questions of the reformed tradition; things that, in many cases, involve reasoning beyond the confession to nail things down pretty precisely. I respect the questions, the follow-ups, and the answers that I see here.
“Additionally, presbytery formed a commission to determine ways to communicate its conclusion with the goal of exonerating TE Meyers and restoring his reputation.”
Well, that’s certainly a relief. All the time I thought there were serious gospel issues at stake when actually the really pressing issue facing MP and the greater PCA is the PR problem Jeffrey Meyers has because of some nattering not nice negative nasty ninth-breakers.
What we do reveals what we are.
“First, he had to leave the Ohio Valley Presbytery because FV elders hounded and chased him out of Dodge. Then he had to leave the MO presbytery and the seminary for being the culprit who wrote the nine declarations against the FV. Will the Mississippi Valley prove to be his “city of refuge”?”
Care to name this mysterious “he”? Or provide support rather than bare assertion?
9th Dude,
Water is only wet decretally. Covenantally, it might be only temporarily damp
and possibly ultimately dry. Or maybe it’s the other way around, in some sense.
And a long-haired wolf with peroxide liberally applied and given a permanent wave is really a sheep.
Eileen,
You are brilliant –so succinct and right on in your judgments. God bless you, my sister, and God save the PCA, for only he can.
Thomas,
My brain is admittedly dizzy but as I recall “recognizing the covenantal faithfulness” of a pastor and “counting him righteous” is not one of the powers given to a Presbytery, indeed that is something that only the God who looks on the heart rather than the outward appearance can do.
Rather what IS a given power of the presbytery according to our BCO (13-9f) is “To condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” and that was the power that the signatories were humbly asking the presbytery to exercise.
But Thomas, to go a little further, your statement indicates a misunderstanding that seems to be spreading, the duty of the presbytery is to watch over the doctrine and teaching of their members not to determine who is “good” and who is “bad.” It would be quite possible for a member of a presbytery to be a sincere Christian and a very nice man, and yet because he is teaching doctrinal error to be someone who should be tried and deposed from office. For instance, I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t want presbyteries filled with Pentecostals, Congregationalists, and Baptists, regardless of the sincerity of their Christian profession or how nice they were.
Now, we’ve already condemned – as a denomination – the FV as an erroneous opinion, and insisted that a Presbytery discipline a TE (LA, Wilkins) because of it. So, either the MO presbytery is formally stating that they repudiate the official position of the PCA in regards to the FV or that they don’t believe Meyers own declarations regarding his FV allegiances. If their declaration was indeed that Meyers is “good” and the signatories “bad” then they did something they were never empowered nor capable of doing.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Daniel Foucachon. Daniel Foucachon said: MO Presbytery exonerates Federal Visionist Jeffrey Meyers of all theological errors http://bit.ly/gBIdu3 [...]
Andy,
I totally empathize with your vertigo–very literally. I think Thomas’ comment was tongue-in-cheek and on point. On the other hand, my own dizziness may be preventing me from seeing that your comment is tongue-in-cheek, too ;0)
These are not the FV droids you are looking for. Move along, move along.
“Water is only wet decretally. Covenantally, it might be only temporarily damp
and possibly ultimately dry. Or maybe it’s the other way around, in some sense.”
“And a long-haired wolf with peroxide liberally applied and given a permanent wave is really a sheep.”
Love your humor, Eileen! We will add your definitions to the ever-growing FV dictionary!
First, Andy, is the case of Meyers really the spiritual equivalent of having a Pentecostal, Congregationalist and a Baptist in a PCA pulpit? Last I checked, and despite their errors, none of these are necessarily anti-Christians. OTOH those who would deny Christ’s finished work completely outside of anything that may be wrought in us, even as the result of faith, have placed themselves outside of the Christian faith (see Matthew 7:15ff). Second, I’m pretty sure Thomas’ comments were tongue and cheek (at least I certainly hope they were).
I read this quote today from Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. It really seems to speak to the current issues.
The purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the present day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible, in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself. Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the present time; there are many who prefer to fight their intellectual battles in what Dr. Francis L. Patton has aptly called a “condition of low visibility.”[1] Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from “controversial” matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.
Andy,
Sorry, I left off the point I thought Thomas made using irony–Missouri presbyters neglected the duties they have in this case, which you aptly described in both of your comments. Thomas’ follow-up ironic comment reinforces your clear and straightforward analysis.
All:
Eileen is correct. I waxed ironic by attributing Meyers’ anti-Christian view of justification, at least as he applies it to the publican, to the presbyters of Missouri Presbytery. They did clear him after all, so there must be some point of agreement between them.
Eileen:
You are brilliant, and not because you caught my point.
Wes,
You have not asked for my permission to publish this document. You have no right to make this document public. Right now it is a private document between me and the presbytery. The men of our presbytery were admonished today and warned NOT to spread any of these documents to anyone outside of our presbytery until they were ready for publication. Everyone there agreed tot his. Someone violated that trust. The version you have posted is not even the correct, most up-to-date edition. Please remove this from your site. You have no right to publish this private document. The presbytery will publish all of the relevant documents sometime next week. Thank you.
Jeff’s request to have the document taken down was posted at 8:34 pm. It is now 1:15 am the next day. Why is the document still up here?
Jeff, I do not see how a public document used in a presbytery which is a public court in their public action can be considered a private document.
Nevertheless, I don’t mind taking it down and allowing Missouri Presbytery to publish the relevant documents later this week.
As for your allegations of wrongdoing, they are totally bogus. If you had taken the time to contact me before making them, I could have easily cleared things up.
Wes, are you serious with the Proverbs reference? Or are you trying to make some sort of joke?
First, the Internet was purged of documents that might reflect poorly on Jeff’s and other FVers’ theology. Now, more public documents used in open ecclesiastical court will be purged by claiming privacy. If MO Pres could find no strong presumption of guilt, then why all the purging and secrecy? Do I smell fish?
With apologies to Casablanca, I’m shocked, shocked to find document shredding going on here…
“then why all the purging and secrecy?”
It’s probably related to the “restoring his reputation” part.
This is not about document shredding and secrecy. This is about accuracy, not to mention common courtesy. The document Wes had published was not the official one. It has not been made public. It was a draft. And it is not his to distribute. What is being purged are inaccurate, unofficial documents. Everything will be made public in a few days.
Les, I apologize. It was a stupid reply. I was flying all day and had just stopped at a hotel because I was driving in blizzard like conditions. Your question was legitimate, and I should have just given you a clear answer. The fact is that I was unable to deal with the matter because I was travelling by plane from California to Western South Dakota.
Thank you Wes.
To the others here who seem to be suspecting some sort of sinister “purging” and may be implying that some men are simply covering up to protect one of their own, etc.,…could it be that you are dangerously close to judging the motives and intentions of these men? Are you close to peering into their hearts to try to understand their actions?
I realize the ninth commandment has been cited by some, and perhaps the WCFLC. Does that WCFLC come into play here when it says,
“Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?”
“A: …evil suspicion;”
I don’t know your hearts, men and women. So I’m not accusing you at all. But perhaps it is something we all should think about.
Hi Les,
This is a bit much. I understand that you did not make an accusation, but I thought MO Presbytery established that you must contact each individual privately to determine exactly what they meant before you could even suspect them in public. But now that you mention it, I wonder if MO Presbytery was guilty of “evil suspicion” when they charged the 29 of violating the 9th without so much as an investigation.
I’ll wait for the report for an answer to that question. Barlow assures me it’s concrete.
That said, when someone purges incriminating information from the web for no apparent reason, common sense says they acted in their own self-interest, which oftentimes includes self-preservation. The same goes for secret societies that swear their members to absolute secrecy, such as the Biblical Horizons list and the Wrightsaid group. Whatever their reason for such a “holy vow” (I believe those are Meyers’ words), the net result is that the members wax heterodox with impunity.
So between the purges, the vows of silence, and the generally foul disposition of the men who purge and take vows, these men have convinced me they’re up to no good. And if you believe that’s a violation of the 9th because of “evil suspicion,” then you should be careful to avoid winking at evil deeds.
Jeff,
Some friendly advice. If you want to restore your reputation, don’t post on blogs.
Musings,
I’m sure these things are mere coincidence. Absolutely certain. No doubt about it. I smell a whiff of flounder in the PCA air…
Les,
I don’t think that suspicion is evil when behaviors are suspicious. In the real world, suspicion is the rational response to actions which appear, on their face, wrong and which lack another plausible explanation. All of us judge others’ intention by their actions, because, as you noted, we cannot judge the heart. Disappearing documents and secret meetings regarding the public teaching of church elders do not dispel suspicion–they create it in rational persons who do not have a priori commitments.
Do not the elders of the church have a great responsibility to avoid the appearance of evil? It seems to me that adopting the attitude and actions of openness rather than the attitude of secrecy and seemingly indiscriminate employment of the Ninth which we are now seeing might be helpful toward restoring some confidence among many of us.
Thomas and 9th Dude, you beat me to it! Well said.
Well, you all will have to determine if the shoe fits.
Maybe it doesn’t need to be clarified but evil suspicion or evil surmising is not saying any suspicion is evil. A contemporary of the Westminster Assemblymen, James Durham, explains:
That we may sum up this command [i.e. the 9th] (which is broad) into some few particulars, we may consider it: 1. First, as it is broken, (1) In the heart. (2) In the gesture. (3) In right. (4) In word.
(1) First, in heart a man may fail,
[1] By suspecting others unjustly; this is called evil surmising (1 Tim. 6:4), or as it is in the original, evil suspicion; which is when men are suspected of some evil without ground, as Potiphar suspected Joseph, or it is jealousy, when this suspicion is mixed with fear of prejudice to some interest we love, so Herod was jealous when Christ was born, and the neighboring kings when Jerusalem was abuilding. There is, I grant, a right suspicion, such as Solomon had of Adonijah, and wherein Gedaliah failed in not crediting Johannan’s information about Ishmael’s conspiracy against his life.
[2] By rash judging and unjust concluding concerning a man’s state, as Job’s friends did; or his actions, as Eli did of Hannah, saying that she was drunk, because of the moving of her lips; or his end, as the Corinthians did of Paul, when he took wages, they said it was covetousness, and when he took it not, they said it was want of love (see Rom. 14:4 and 2 Cor. 12:4, etc).
[3] By hasty judging, too soon passing sentence in our mind from some seeming evidence of that which is only in the heart, and not in the outward practice, this is but to judge before the time, and hastily (Matt. 7:1).
[4] There is light judging, laying the weight of conclusions upon arguments or midses [means] that will not bear it, as Job’s friends did, and as the Barbarians suspected Paul to be a murderer, when they saw the viper on his hand (Acts 25:4). Thus the King Ahaseurus trusted Haman’s calumny of the Jews too soon.
[5] The breach of this command in the heart may be when suspicion of our neighbor’s failing is kept up, and means not used to be satisfied about it, contrary to that, Matt. 18:15, If thy brother offend thee, etc; and when we seek not to be satisfied, but rest on presumptions, when they seem probable.
(2) Secondly, in gesture…. [Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments (Naphtali Press, 2003) 388. The full exposition of the ninth is also in The Blue Banner Volume 10 Issue 1. January-March 2001. http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner10-1.pdf
By the way, procedure is often the last refuge of the ecclesiastical scoundrel.
It worked for the liberals in the ’20s, and it appears to be working on us now.
Jeff,
Since this is about accuracy, will you and others be reposting all the FV stuff you all took down a few months back? If there’s nothing to hide and it’s not about shredding, then there should be no problems with putting it all back up, eh?
I am not familiar with the PCA’s BCO, but are there statutes of limitation for offenses? For example in the PCUSA in the 30′s the statute of limitations was two years so that the Auburn Affirmationists didn’t get charged in those first two years they were free, and in the OPC’s BoD there is also the two year statute of limitations, such that even if Meyeres signed the FV statement it is not actionable under the OPC’s BoD as he signed it more than two years ago.
“9th Commandment Signatory Dude” – I like that – NCSD – seems like it is becoming an honorary society gaining new members everyday. Can “dudettes” join too, even if we didn’t sign but were accused numerous times by the FV folks in the past?
What happened with the MO presbytery could turn out to be a good thing for the PCA. It forces the leadership to do more than damage control. With the future of the seminary at stake as well, the leadership is forced to draw the line in the sand in an aggressive way.
BTW, from our experience with presbytery reports, when there is a lot of political corruption and backroom deals (standard procedure with the FV), the presbytery goes out of their way to file their reports away so that no one can discover their BCO violations and lies – or should I say real 9th commandment violations.
Lauren,
If memory serves, presbyteries must make a recording and full transcripts of all judicial proceedings. That came about after the initial round of the LAP fiasco. The first set of required recordings showed some of the back-room dealing coming out in public. Very enlightening. I expect to see those posted shortly by MO for public review. After that, we’ll see what comes next…
Musings,
I don’t think this is about accuracy, either. I don’t expect that any of the writings and teachings which *mysteriously* disappeared when the heat was turned up will suddenly reappear. The interesting question is why the men in these churches with disappearing documentation — the men who should have been paying attention — did not raise their voices in protest about this pretty obvious maneuver.
This is about revising history so that inconvenient facts are not available for evaluation. This is about hiding and exposure. My experience with an FV teacher is that inconvenient facts are dismissed or diminished, red herrings are introduced to misdirect inquiry, amiable personality is used as a disguise, and other unsavory tactics are employed in order to deflect attention from the real issue at hand and in an effort to silence those with the temerity to question the narrative.
Above all, this is about personal loyalties trumping everything else. My guy, right or wrong.
Eileen,
That was exactly the story in Louisiana with Wilkins. It took several years, but in the end the truth prevailed. We need to take the long view and trust in God’s gracious providence for His church. As long as we remain diligent and pursue erroneous teaching to the logical conclusion, I’m convinced that God will bless our efforts. If we simply give up and concede to error, we really do violate the 9th Commandment and our ordination oaths, plus dishonor the gospel. It may not make us popular, but then our goal isn’t to please men.
Gentlemen,
As a lay member of the PCA, I find this kind of very public discourse disheartening and discouraging. To read your comments and your vitriol is very discouraging to the rest of us who don’t follow your arguments and discussions as close. Is this the way you are called to govern our church? Where is the concept of discussing these issues confidentially before airing your grievances and naming pastors before the public – both the believing church public and the public in general? Why, should I, as a member of the PCA have any respect or honor for you, as you have no honor or respect for your fellow ordained brothers? I am especially disheartened that you would name pastors by name in your comments – pastors that I, as a member of a church in the MO Presbytery count as friends and leaders – irrelevant of how they treat a pastor who spouses FV. We are members of this denomination because we believe in grace to each other, and the comments here do not reflect that grace and love. It is my hope that you will stop using the internet as a place to air your grievances and use it as a tool to bring the church together.
Musings,
Great reminder to trust in God’s providence, since He does allow these trials to take place over time. I think Lauren is right that this development may be a good thing in that it will reveal the character of the men of the PCA, for good or ill, as trials always do. It’s interesting to observe the variety and nature of trials that the Lord brings to different corners of His church and how those trials manifest the true condition of the church.
Do you think this matter will proceed to the SJC as the LAP case did, or is it too early to say?
From reading this comment thread, one might think the Spirit is more at work through ten people talking over high speed Internet than a room full of ordained men praying and deliberating over the course of hours. If this faceless Monday morning quarterbacking is what has come of American Presbyterianism, God have mercy on us all!
John,
You should follow our discussions more closely.
The gospel itself is at stake.
Kindest Regards,
TE Brian Carpenter
David,
Please refresh my memory. Was there a room full of ordained men praying and deliberating over the course of hours in the LAP when they first exonerated Steve Wilkins? Did the SJC engage in Monday morning quarterbacking of LAP? Just wondering regarding the point of your comment. I agree with you in pleading for God’s mercy on us all. In all circumstances.
Brian,
With utmost respect, I can hardly follow this discussion because it is simply full of disparaging comments about men who disagree with each other. I don’t see anywhere where the issue of my salvation being founded in the saving work of Jesus is being discussed. While we continue to worship the Almighty King, it seems that some of our leaders think it more important to openly insult each other and call out names of pastors in public. Please enlighten me – one of the “ignorant masses” – as to how this argument is about the Gospel or how it is being handled in a Biblical manner.
John,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on this site. I greatly appreciate your contribution.
I do not ask that you honor me or have respect for me. If you do not, that is fine.
I do think that a clear and open discussion of grievances is one way to help bring the church together. In fact, I would argue that having safe places to discuss grievances is one way that we can help each other understand our real concerns. It is only in such a context that we will really be able to come together. One of the goals of the PCA is to allow open and free discussion without fear. That’s one thing I have tried to offer on this blog. I would encourage you to make use of this blog to offer your perpsective on these matters.
Sincerely, Wes White
John,
As a pew-dweller myself, I understand how it would be hard to follow the discussion here and also why you might not understand the intensity of the discussion if you are just learning about the Federal Vision doctrines. I encourage you to investigate for yourself what is said here.
I don’t think that there is any vitriol here, but there’s plenty of straight talk, which unfortunately, is lacking in the church. If you find that offensive, then you’d best avoid parts of Acts and most of Jude and large parts of the Epistles and pretty much everything our Lord said to the Scribes and Pharisees in the Gospels. If you do want to see vitriol, you will find plenty of that in the writings of James B. Jordan ;o)
John,
Yes your salvation is at stake in these discussions. Specifically whether you are given a temporary salvation in baptism which you can then lose and end up in hell by not being humbly obedient enough. This temporary salvation is indistinguishable from the kind that sees you to heaven, right up to the moment it fails, thus any self examination is useless and there is no possibility of the WCF’s infallible assurance. See any problems with that?
-Brian
I will look into the questions that you have all posed, but I think it is completely inappropriate for you to name pastors in these comments. You do it for no other reason but to embarrass and expose them as people with whom you disagree. I don’t believe that airing your differences and grievances with specific pastors is Biblical in any context except a private one, unless they are refusing, in some way, to follow their vows. That is what I find most offensive.
John,
But you don’t find it offensive that some PCA elders publicly and boldly teach doctrines contrary to Scripture and the Westminster Standards? Would you chastise Augustine for highlighting Pelagius’ erroneous teachings? Would you condemn Calvin for holding the Theology Faculty of Paris up for public scrutiny? The gospel is again at stake in the current Federal Vision debate. Should we order tea and simply watch the flock in the PCA be lead away from the true gospel of Jesus Christ?
You may find it enlightening to read the history of ecclesiastical cases of the last four years or so involving Steve Wilkins, formerly of Louisiana Presbytery, and that presbytery itself. Don’t skip the theological debate or the procedural issues. Everything is available on the web. I link to the SJC findings on my blog.
As for vitrol, try reading the Federal Visionist blogs where the PCA and its officers are denigrated and called vile names. Not all of that material has been purged and shredded. This, too, may give you some perspective on the difference between open/honest discussion and vitrol.
Some background research on your part can go a long way to informing you about the issues in discussion here. Most of us here have years of experience with the Federal Vision errors and their advocates.
Eileen, thanks for making my point for me. You hit the bulls eye by noting that the Spirit works through the courts of Christ’s church. We can have confidence that the Spirit worked His will among the brothers in MO presbytery until another court gives us reason to believe otherwise.
I second Eileen comment: ‘straight talk’! I understand the frustration shared by many. I was once a member of an FV church and had left since then. I really wish that these FV leaders would stop playing with words and be clear for once.
As I have said it before, perhaps they should come to Parris Island, SC to get some training from my Drill Instructor on how to be precise, clear and concise. I personally would not want to go into a battle with these FVers. It’s like reading Barth: “Well, when I say x, it doesn’t mean strictly x, it could also mean x 1/2.” My sincere plea is: please be clear and quit playing with words/terms that can only confuse others.
As for the “love” comment: I’ll quote from Al Pacino, “I don’t know what to say really….” This exact same comment was given to Athanasius, Cyril and my personal hero, J. Gresham Machen; IMHO, they were the ones who really “love” and “care” for the sheep.
1st Lt. C. Rivera
I just want to encourage everyone to pray for all those involved in these matters. May God give wisdom, discernment, and love for His truth.
David, would you disagree with the idea that the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable?
David,
Really? The courts are always right? Right when they vindicated resurrection-deniers in the 20s? Right when they condemned Luther? Right when they adopted the articles of Trent?
Puhleeaze….
This is precisely what is wrong with the PCA today. So many don’t even know what the gospel is.
Grace is absolutely free, and justification is conditional upon no attribute in the person justified…not his humility, not his fulfilling of the terms of the covenant.
Away with this semi-Pelagian Pharasaical FV drivel.
David,
The gospel is our standard. The pronouncements of a thousand ordained men are nothing when those pronouncements are anti-gospel.
David,
I believe the clear implication of your first comment was that the Spirit worked through the Missouri Presbytery but is not working through those who are commenting here against their decision. That sounds a lot like folks who think in “infallible magisterium” terms. As for your second comment, I think everyone here believes that God works through the church courts. Why are you setting up that straw man?
John,
Many of us have had first-hand experience with FV, and some of us with more than one church. As for naming pastors, I think the only ones named here are Jeffrey Meyers and Steve Wilkins, both of whom have been subject to public proceedings. I mentioned James Jordan, and although he is not a pastor, he is a high-profile “prophet” of the FV movement. For the sake of you, your family, and your church, please investigate these matters for yourself.
Rachel,
That’s a timely admonition. Thank you.
If my house were on fire, I would need to call 911 and give them my name and address so that the firemen could come quickly to put the fire out. Without the address, they would not be able to get to the house on time to rescue any individuals and keep the fire from spreading.
The PCA house is on fire and has been burning for several years. Whenever the opposition tries to put out the fire by giving names of presbyteries and teaching elders who are on public record to be the arsonists, these individuals are demonized and slapped with silly 9th commandment violations. Meanwhile the house still burns and is spreading. The PCA now has a seminary that has permission to recruit FV individuals and train them to poison more pulpits – thanks to this latest MO presbytery decision.
Not sure this link will come through right, but worth posting.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8336:some-heartening-fv-news&catid=46:auburn-avenue-stuff
Wait, wait, wait…..I thought there was no Federal Vision? I am so confused. Maybe I need Jim Jordan to straighten me out.
I got it: Covenantally, there is no Federal Vision, but decretally, there is!
Lauren,
Can you explain your comment: “The PCA now has a seminary that has permission to recruit FV individuals and train them to poison more pulpits – thanks to this latest MO presbytery decision”?
I’m simply curious how this conclusion is reached, as the seminary is not under any authority of MO presbytery, but governed by a board of directors appointed by the General Assembly. In otherwords, the seminary is under the authority of General Assembly, not any one presbytery. Not disputing that you obviously see problems in both the presbytery and the seminary; just wondering what connection you see between the two.
David,
I believe there are a few questions which have been posed to you and which you have not yet answered. We’re interested in your reply.
Speaking for myself and not for Lauren or anyone else, you have pointed out the explicit “chain of command” while ignoring what happens in practice. Is it disputed that Covenant has students which have interned with Jeffrey Meyers? I think that at least several students have, and while they were interns they were under the authority of Missouri Presbytery. Given the actions of MP in this case, a prospective student with FV propensities might well conclude that, since MP thinks that Jeffrey Meyers’ teaching is fine, Covenant is a great place to study because one can intern with Jeffrey Meyers in ecclesiastical safety. Lauren’s point is that actions do indeed have consequences beyond what might at first be obvious. Basically, you are ignoring normal human behavioral responses which are usually more agile than institutional ones.
Many of us believe that, with this decision, MP has openly flouted the GA’s vote against FV. Your argument will have more force when and if the GA explicitly instructs the board of Covenant not to permit FV teaching and when the board of Covenant explicitly acts in ways which engender confidence that it will not tolerate FV teaching among its faculty and, further, when Covenant actively opposes FV on its campus.
It seems from what you write that you agree with MP’s decision, while Lauren and I obviously disagree. I think those presuppositions color our conclusions.
Awaiting your reply to the questions posed to you…
Lt. Rivera,
Thank you for your service to our country and all of us which enables us to have this discussion.
I don’t think any of the FV guys could survive for very long anywhere near a Marine D.I. on Parris Island. I think FV guys are much more suited to Hilton Head. The military values straight talk and strong action, and we can all thank God for that! Now, perhaps some other TE’s and RE’s might benefit from an extended retreat at Parris Island…
Your comment regarding the nature of love is absolutely right on. Unfortunately, many prefer the kisses of an enemy to the faithful wounds of a friend.
John,
The pastor in question on this blog post has signed a profession of faith publicly stating that’s what he believes, and regularly upheld that position in his own public writings. He wasn’t at all private or secret about it. It is a position which our General Assembly has expressly said is contrary to our Standards.
How is it that we are violating our ordination vows by naming his name? He already did that for us.
I understand your reticence, but the sociological dynamic you are articulating and upholding is exactly the sociological dynamic that allowed the PCUSA to plunge headlong into liberalism, and the criticism you are offering was exactly the criticism that was leveled at Machen.
This approach to things leads directly and inexorably to the loss of denominations.
Eileen-
I am not oblivious to the “normal human behavioral responses” that you point out, nor to the dynamics that are involved when an institution is in geographic proximity to a presbytery. But I am asking why the seminary has any more “permission” to do or not do anything than before this decision of MO presbytery? A seminary can hardly be responsible for where its students choose to intern; would you be equally concerned, for instance, about non-PCA seminary students who choose to intern at Arminian churches?
Or are you and Lauren suggesting that MO presbytery has some sort of say in the curriculum and teaching that occurs at the seminary? I’m not clear on what influence you believe MO presbytery exercises over the seminary.
Again, just trying to get a handle on where Lauren is coming from (and you, since you’ve chosen to answer for her) & hoping you can help me understand.
I don’t know about any questions posed to me. My previous comment was my first on this thread.
David et al., I think there is some confusion because there are two Davids commenting. I can see that but those who are commenting cannot. I have changed your name (you know who you are) to David 2 for the sake of clarity. If you could use that name (or another one, and I can change the others), then I think that would be helpful.
David,
My apologies. I assumed, since you did not differentiate yourself from the “David” upthread, that you were one and the same. I hope he will return to reply.
I believe you actually have ignored pretty much what I wrote, which, as I made clear, was my opinion, and not Lauren’s. Permission entails passive behaviors as well as active ones. The actions of MP are tacit permission to tolerate FV within MP bounds. How many Covenant students are under the authority of MP? How about faculty? I’m assuming most are. You want to place an emphasis on formal structures, and I wish to emphasize informal structures and behaviors which are often just as important and arguably at times more important. However, on your terms, I have suggested institutional actions which would entail formal structures, and I will be much more encouraged when and if Covenant and GA take the steps I mentioned.
No, I would not be concerned if a non-PCA student at Covenant interned at an Arminian church. Of course, this assumes that Covenant is not tolerating the teaching of Arminian theology. So, you have actually changed the subject to non-PCA students and Arminian theology, which is not a clear and present danger, while FV is.
“The actions of MP are tacit permission to…”
The actions haven’t been published yet.
Eileen-
I’m sorry you don’t believe I have interacted with you. I think I assumed that since I originally asked the question, we were discussing what I had asked.
At any rate, I think the root of my original question is this: What authority do you believe Covenant Seminary possesses- or should possess- over where its students worship or intern? The seminary, although existing for the purpose of training pastors, actually has very little authority – formal or informal – over a lot of that process. Please don’t misunderstand me; professors obviously influence students in all sorts of ways as they teach, and yes, they do shape future ministers! But Covenant does not bring candidates under care, oversee their internships, evaluate their progress or fitness for ministry, or examine them for ordination. All of these things are the responsibility of individual presbyteries, not the seminary. That may seem odd (and in some ways it strikes me as so), but that’s the way the PCA is structured. Simply put, the seminary can’t supply any pastors to the PCA except those who are examined and accepted by individual presbyteries.
I don’t know how many students or faculty are under authority of MO presbytery, though I think less than you might imagine. Most professors remain members of whatever presbytery they came from; president Chapell, for example, remained a member of Iliana presbytery where he pastored. As for students, most come under care of their home presbyteries. You would be right, though, to say the MO has more students under care than other presbyteries. (A presbytery directory would be able to give you more precise information.)
So while I’m not trying to ignore your point of view, I’m still wondering exactly what you expect from the seminary, as I don’t see how they can act in any way that you suggest without a formal action of GA.
Hope that helps.
Wes: I’ve changed my name to David S and will stick with it should I comment elsewhere, so feel free to change the other comments accordingly. And thanks for clearing this up.
FV is much worse than Arminian theology. Arminians do not teach justification by baptism and humble obedience. Rome does, though.
Yes, students may intern with Jeff Myers, but I think we need to realize that what is also a real problem for covenant seminary, is that most of the professors there are ordained ministers holding their credentials in MO Presbytery. This is a SERIOUS problem as they did not stand up at Presbytery to condemn blatent FV (sin) when they saw it.
Which begs the question, do they support him…do they agree with him? And if so, just what is being taught at the Seminary? Are students being armed to deal with such sin? This needs to be sorted out and soon or I fear that more pulpits will indeed be poisoned.
@Barlow: The actions have been published on The Aquilla Report; looks like they scooped Reformed News.
barlow,
Is there no information contained in what has been published, as referenced by Doug Wilson’s blog, that might be considered tacit permission to teach what Jeffrey Meyers teaches? Do we have to have all the details in order to get the big picture message that MP thinks that Meyers’ teaching is OK? I thought that’s pretty much what exonerated means in this context.
David S,
Those are interesting details regarding the relationship between presbyteries, Covenant, and the GA. I think you are magnifying those and minimizing the “influence” which professors have over students, and, indeed, how professors influence which students choose to attend a given seminary in the first place. In other words, a seminary that is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be safe for FV views will almost certainly attract students with those views.
You asked what I thought that Covenant could do, absent action by the GA. Well, I thought the GA had already voted on FV, and it seems that it is MP which has introduced confusion into the process (what? FV and confusion?) This decision has put Covenant in a rather awkward position, and I think it would be helpful for the board to clarify the position of the seminary, since I don’t see how to reconcile the decisions of the GA and MP. Are you saying that the Covenant board, in the wake of this, cannot direct Covenant faculty not to teach FV doctrines and that the board cannot direct Covenant to actively oppose FV on campus until the GA takes some further action? Archie raises some interesting issues in that regard, so we shall see what we learn in the coming weeks.
I recognize that just because I don’t see a way to reconcile the MP decision with the GA decision doesn’t mean that barlow or others may have details which make that reconciliation possible “in some sense.”
Archie,
Your point cannot be overstated because as the Bible teaches, like begets like, and the men who exonerated Meyers are the same men who are begetting disciples at Covenant Seminary. In turn, those disciples will be called to fill PCA pulpits across the land, or as you say, “more pulpits will indeed be poisoned,” and the poisonous pastors will contaminate others by spreading the false doctrine to the souls in their care.
This is a staggering thought, when you actually stop to think about it, because there’s no end in sight until the PCA finally resolves to excise this cancer from the very core of its body, which includes not only every pulpit but the official seminary of the denomination.
And lest anyone forget, Rob Rayburn, who is defense for Peter Leithart, has stated, “I was recently in St. Louis, and the men in Missouri Presbytery and at Covenant Seminary are fit to be tied. Lest you forget Covenant Theological Seminary is the seminary of the PCA, and my contribution to the defense of Peter Leithart has been as well received there as it has in my own Presbytery of Pacific Northwest.”
http://www.weswhite.net/2010/12/apology-to-dr-bryan-chapell/
Those of us who have been around this debate since the beginning remember that Barlow (assuming it is Jon Barlow of Barlow Farms) has long been the apologist (a far nicer term than originally I typed) for all things FV. He played good cop to Mark Horne’s bad cop.
Suffice it to say: when the report comes out, it will ratify all that has been said here in the minds of all who truly understand the gospel of grace. There will be no question about where Meyers really stands, where Mo Presbytery has chosen to stand, and where Lutjens, Vander Maas and company stand. You can take this to the bank.
Like Trent, it will be a defining document. And, it will be a document defining itself in opposition to the true Biblical gospel of free grace through the all-sufficiency of Christ.
Two soteriological systems are at work, as Jeff Meyers so ably demonstrated in his ill-advised replies on the Parable of the Pharisee in the Publican elsewhere on this site. Either I am saved by keeping covenant with God, and meeting the requirements of the covenant — Meyers’s position — or I am saved because my great covenant head has met all the terms of God’s covenant on my behalf, and given it to me as a gift of grace received by faith alone — the position of Scripture.
Either I am saved by the praiseworthy qualities of my faith — Meyers’s position — or I am saved by a faith that is nothing other than grasping on to the all-sufficient Christ — the position of Scripture.
On which side would you rather stand?
Is there a list of those who were on the committee that did the investigation for the MO Presbytery?
Archie,
Yes, that list is available. Here are the men who investigated Meyers:
The investigating committee includes TE Stephen Estock, TE Andrew Vander Maas, RE David Yates, TE Dr. Will Barker, TE Ryan Laughlin, TE Dr. David Chapman, TE Dr. Bob Burns, TE Mark Ryan, and RE Dr. Jay Wippold.
Burns, Yates, and Ryan actually investigated whether Meyers was aggrieved by the reports.
At least 5 out of 9 of that list teach Seminary students…
Archie,
Do you have any information on how many Covenant professors are also members of MO Presbytery?
Interesting that even this number are present. It seems that I remember TE Dr. Mark Dalby saying that one of our denomination’s policies was to make seminary professors keep their membership in some presbytery other than the one the seminary was in wherever possible so that they don’t all nest in one place, gain disproportionate influence, and increase the chances of spreading heresy, like the did in the old PCUS.
It seems our forefathers were concerned that academics are often the ones who are most prone to their doctrinal cheese sliding off their cracker.
I am also forcibly reminded once again of TE Rob Rayburn’s remarks that his defense of Federal Visionist Peter Leithart was as well received at Covenant as it was in his own presbytery.
Brian, I have never seen the rule you mention about where professors have their credentials in the BCO.
Dalby is also a member of Missouri.
Yeah, I’ve never seen it either. But Dalby was sitting with me in a meeting of the Ohio Valley Presbytery when he told me that.
Dr. Dalby recently transferred to Missouri Presbytery.
Yeah. I figured.
Anon, again, it bears repeating. The committee wrote a 50-something page report and I don’t see that anywhere on the Aquila report site… So no, you haven’t seen all the documentation yet.
“Do we have to have all the details in order to get the big picture message that MP thinks that Meyers’ teaching is OK?”
No, but I think we need the details in order to understand what “Meyers’ teaching” is.
The letter of complaint said:
1. Meyers says X which seems to be a denial of the WCF
2. We also deduce that Meyers denies Y doctrine
Missouri questioned Meyers very thoroughly to see what he is saying (x) and whether he makes the deduction (y) from that that you’re alleging he must make given his theology. (That first thing that Wes published prematurely was huge – they really asked him a lot of good questions.) Until you’ve either conducted your own trial (it wasn’t a trial, but it may as well have been), or you have read the reasoning of the MO Presbytery, then you don’t have all the facts needed to figure out if the arrows are directed properly. Further, there was dialogue between Meyers and MO Presby, and a man deserves the opportunity to clarify where he has been unclear, and make qualifications that he may not have been careful to make in the past.
It frustrates me to have to defend the presbytery, and it would be nice for those documents to be in evidence straightaway, but things have to be done decently and in order.
I look forward to reading Missouri’s final report and seeing some substantive interactions with the actual content of the report, here. Right now, all I see is a lot of hand wringing, irony, and just-so stories about how the process must have gone. This is a discussion in need of data.
The CTS website and the PCA ministerial directory should answer the question pretty quickly about which professors are members of MOP. I would put the number around 33%, roughly.
Wow 33% teach at Covenant. That provides insight why Rayburn would include MOP in the following statement, ““I was recently in St. Louis, and the men in Missouri Presbytery and at Covenant Seminary are fit to be tied.”
Covenant Seminary and the members of MOP are the same.
Dean, you’re reading that backwards. 30-40 percent of CTS faculty are members of MOP; MOP is NOT 30% made up of CTS faculty. That percent would be much lower.
TE Carpenter-I believe you are confused about the requirement of seminary professors having their membership in different presbyteries. It was encourage by RTS, now RTS Jackson to have their professors to keep their membership in different presbyteries. When I was at RTS, TE Kooistra held his membership in Warrior Presbytery. TE Taylor held his membership in Evangel Presbytery.
There is no requirement for seminary profs to hold their membership outside where they teach. The same is true for those who work for the PCA committees. If you look at the rolls of the Georgia presbyteries, you will find that 90% of TE are members of those presbyteries.
Elliott P
Thank you for the correction.
That would be a sad situation indeed it it were true the opposite were true.
Hi Jonathan, I think that the points that you are making are well-taken, and I’m sure that everyone will be happy to give a careful read to the documents that MO Presbytery puts out.
I understand that there is also a larger context. However, I’m sure you can see that when our concern was what Meyers is saying about the perseverance of group X and the MO Presbytery comes out and says that there is no problem in what Meyers teaches about group Y, that this would be a bit disconcerting.
In addition, remember that the signers had concerns over six points. The report only addresses five. In their exonerations, they did not address what group X received in baptism (point 4 of the LOC) nor whether there are reprobate saints who do not persevere (point 5).
Perhaps there is a logical explanation (and I would certainly be happy to offer my services to help them get these documents online, if anyone from MO Presbytery desires it), but on the surface of it, it is troubling. It would be just as troubling if we had said, “I believe TE Z stole my car.” Then, we receive the exoneration that says “there is not sufficient evidence to say that he stole your bike.” Perhaps they mean that he didn’t steal anything from me, but I think that would be a strange way to express it.
I think the phrase “insufficient evidence” is an interesting choice of words.
They had the man there, under their authority. They are supposed to be investigating his views. Presumably he answered their questions fully and freely and truthfully. If he was contumacious and refused to answer fully and freely and truthfully, they should have charged him with contumacy and violations of the Ninth Commandment. It does not yet appear that they have done so. (Jonathan, I said “yet.” As you point out, the facts are not all in yet.)
So if Meyers was not obstructing or refusing to cooperate with their investigation, why the language of insufficient evidence? Wouldn’t the normal course of things be to say, “No he does not,” or “Yes he does,” instead of “We don’t have enough evidence to move forward and definitively prove one way or the other”?
The presbytery has the man in their power and they have the mandate to investigate. Why have they not arrived at substantive conclusions?
Brian, I think that is just the language of the process from the BCO. There is different language used when exonerating a man from allegations than from describing the outcome of a trial.
@9th Commandment Signatory Dude:
There’s another fact about Barlow that you might find interesting. The original pdf of “A Joint Federal Vision Statement” was generated on his desktop. You can tell this by checking the properties tab in Acrobat.
By contrast, the pdf of the “Report of the Missouri Presbytery ad hoc Committee on Federal Vision Theology” was generated on Jeff Meyers’ desktop.
And most interestingly, the pdf of Jeffrey Meyers’ “My Response to the Committee’s Questions,” which Meyers asked Pastor White to remove from this site, was generated on Stephen Estock’s desktop.
[...] 11, 2011 at 10:32 am (Federal Vision) Wes White has some details here. Don’t forget to read the comments, which are very interesting indeed. A fuller explanation [...]
Archie,
I think 6 of those people actually teach students. TE Stephen Estock teaches preperation for ordination and licensure class, TE Dr. David Chapman teaches New testment classes, TE Dr. Bob Burns is full time staff (I can’t remember what he teaches), TE Mark Ryan is part time I believe and teaches contemporary culture, and I believe that TE Ryan Laughlin and TE Andrew Vander Maas only teach one class…preaching.
JWT – I’m not sure what you’re implying, but Estock is the person who *should* be creating all these PDFs for distribution. Like all stuff these days, I’m sure that docs start as Word and then are PDF-ized for distribution.
Okay, I’m going to check out for now. I’ll read this site again once the committee reports are released and I’ve had a chance to read them… Until then, there just isn’t anything substantive to talk about.
[...] presbytery, the answer is yes. Read more about the recent decision here at the Aquila Report and here at Johannes [...]
TE Vander Maas was the head of the investigative committee.
Barlow:
I did not imply anything. I merely observed that you generated the Joint FV Statement on your desktop; Meyers generated the “Report of the Missouri Presbytery ad hoc Committee on Federal Vision Theology” on his desktop; and Stephen Estock generated Meyers’ “My Response to the Committee’s Questions” on his desktop. All three of these facts make perfect sense to me.
Regarding “there just isn’t anything substantive to talk about”: Off the top of my head, I can think of three substantive points that everyone should be talking about:
1. Missouri Presbytery exonerated Meyers across the board, despite his signature on “A Joint Federal Vision Statement.”
2. Missouri Presbytery exonerated Meyers of something that no one alleged, claiming there was insufficient evidence. Frankly, I hope this report that you find so assuring will produce evidence that the non-existent allegation actually exists.
3. Six of the nine men who voted to exonerate Meyers teach at Covenant Seminary.
I am confident that any objective person would find these three points substantive, which probably explains a lot about Missouri Presbytery’s objectivity.
Barlow,
Yeah, okay, I wasn’t thinking carefully. I can see how a court wouldn’t want to make any absolute statements about any of these issues because they have only examined the evidence before them.
Kindest Regards,
Brian
Barlow:
Missouri Presbytery’s conduct in this case reminds of Rob Rayburn’s complaint against the SJC in the Leithart case, when he wrote, “Surely in highly politicized cases such as these, great care should be taken to ensure that the SJC’s conduct of its affairs be above reproach. Has it been? One remembers Herman Bavinck’s melancholy observation — the observation of a politician and a churchman — that while politics are often seamy, church politics are always so.”
By the way, my pdf of Rob Rayburn’s SJC brief was burned on Jeffrey Meyers’ desktop. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
[...] Recently PCA pastor, Andy Webb, commenting on the recent exoneration of FV pastor Jeff Meyers, and in repose to a tongue and cheek comment by someone who Webb evidently mistook as one of Meyers’ defenders, wrote: [...]
I love that purple stole Jeff wears. Cool robes
“For Those Just Tuning In”; R. Scott Clark has some great information.
Andy Webb, you are a hypocrite because you are out of accord with the WCF on the efficacy of baptism. I forwarded the evidence to your own Presbytery, and they dismissed the evidence out of hand, so you have received the same treatment that you are now complaining that Jeff Meyers received from his Presbytery.
You may well feel dizzy, and I hope it is your conscience that is producing the feeling.
I may add I accepted the decision of your Presbytery because it is sinful to murmer against the judgement of a court, even when they are clearly wrong.
Just so people understand. Here is Roger Du Barry’s view:
You can read the source of the original quote here.
Yes, most of them are simply disingenuous Tractarian Anglicans. We might speculate why so many of them are less than forthcoming about this. It may simply be self-preservation –Presbyterian paychecks may be better than Anglican unemployment.
It strains credulity to believe they cannot see the difference between what they propound and the Westminster Standards.
Reading Jeffrey Meyers’s responses, the constant note chord “Room for me. Room for me. Everyone says the standards have room for me” is struck. Very little is said about what the Standards actually say.
Well, the standards don’t have room for a man who stated publicly on this very blog that justification is granted as the result of the tax collector fulfilling the terms of the covenant. Toss merit aside, because it obscures the argument. He quite clearly said that salvation comes as the result of something I do. At heart, that is semi-Pelagianism. Argue that the obedience comes from God, and you have Tridentine infusionism.
Whatever it is, it is not grace alone, which teaches that our standing with God is his gift, not the result of our efforts, or the attributes of our faith/faithfulness.
Roger
“Andy Webb, you are a hypocrite because you are out of accord with the WCF on the efficacy of baptism. ”
Maybe when you get seven denominations and three seminaries to agree that the teaching of the Westminster on baptism is out of accord with the WCF then your mere assertion might carry some weight.
In the mean time calling TE Webb a hypocrite when you also add that you submit to the decision of his presbytery is, well rather, hypocritical.
Roger,
You wrote: “I may add I accepted the decision of your Presbytery because it is sinful to murmer against the judgement of a court, even when they are clearly wrong.”
Yet here you are publicly stating that the Presbytery is clearly wrong.
I am not in the PCA, but I assume that like in the OPC you would have the right to appeal the Presbytery’s decision given that you think they are clearly wrong. If you choose not to make such an appeal, would it not be better to simply remain silent?
David
In the OPC BoD there is no right of appeal for acquittals. Rev. Stuart Jones thinks it was dropped back in the 30′s in light of the Machen trial.
Back in August 2008, when Michael J. G. Pahls declared “that a 17th Century White European confession cannot possibly be employed to speak with unequivocal force to define a 21st Century, multi-ethnic, and globalized Christian body,” Jeff Meyers so resonated with those words that he decided to take them one step further. He wrote:
It would be interesting, indeed, to hear Meyers explain how he is able to remain in conformity to a system of doctrine that he finds sterile, insufficient, and “exactly the opposite” of the high point (which would seem, on the face of his declaration, to make it the low point) of the Reformation era creeds.
DavidGG,
Thanks. I mistakenly thought that Roger was talking about a complaint rather than a trial.
Thanks again for the correction.
David
Ron,
Very good question.
But I’ll go you one better. How can he take a vow that says he believes that the Westminster Standards are “THE system of doctrine taught in the scriptures?”
Clearly, because he believes the Scriptures are a sterile document, not enough for the next 100 or 500 years.
Quite obviously I am being facetious.
But, I am not the only one, nor am I the topic of conversation.
We ruined his reputation?
Seems to me he does a good job of that on his own.
Yes, I refuse to believe that the 29 men who filed charges against TE Meyers ruined his reputation. They were men across the denomination, not all from SiouxLands Presbytery, who were concerned about these desparing comments regarding our Westminster Standards. Frankly, those who deny our standards, are not willing to go into other groups where they can have full reign to teach and practice their denials, because they want to take over our denomination. I am afraid that often times they are given free reign in the PCA and then it is difficult to do anything at that point.
Btw, Pastor Meyers did address the post than Mr. Henzel is quoting above, over on green baggins. He wrote:
“Where I am required to confess the “sufficiency” of the Westminster Standards? My ordination vows? The Confession of Faith? The Catechisms? The Westminster Confession warns us against elevating human documents to the level of infallibility. WCF 31.3 says, “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
Why then is the WCF thought to be the infallible, unchangeable rule of faith for all time by some men? My point in this comment you quoted has to do with the undue veneration that has been paid to this 17th-century document. Decrying its misuse does not imply that I have no place for its proper use. To say that it is not “sufficient” to provide answers to all of our questions in the 21st century is not to suggest that it has no value “to help” (as 31.3 makes clear). But the Bible alone is sufficient. I know of no Reformed doctrine of the “sufficiency of Westminster” or the “sufficiency of Dort,” for that matter. I’ll stand by that. To say that it is rather “sterile” for modern times is to critique its scholastic FORM not the truth of the Scriptures that are embodied in its 17th-century language and thought forms.
To continue to use a 500-year-old document as the final arbiter of all “controversies of religion” goes against the core principles of the WCF itself. The divines themselves did not determine what was true and biblical by some strict subscription to some earlier creedal document. They went to the Scriptures. And in their opening chapter on the Holy Scripture they warned us about the temptation to do otherwise. Twice we are told that “in all controversies of religion” the church is always to finally appeal to the Scriptures (1:8; 1:9).
Finally, it is rather provincial, un-historical, and, yes, silly to think that the Westminster Standards will “be enough” to guide the church in the next 100-500 years. I’ll stand by that. No human creed or confession or catechism is sufficient for its own time, let alone for ages to come. Why is this document the last confessional document needed till the end of time? I see this as just another way of confessing the absolute sufficiency of Holy Scripture and warning against idolizing human confessional documents. What’s so un-Reformed about that?”
Barlow,
If one truly believes as Meyers, you, and other FVer, then doesn’t it violate the 9th Commandment to take a public oath of office affirming that the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine taught by holy Scripture? The FV posts on this subject miss the core issue: One can be an officer in other denominations or even freelance and believe whatever one wishes, but one cannot toss the Standards in the trash bin of time, deny sola fide repeatedly in writing, and make up one’s own version of the covenant between God and Adam and hold ordained office in the PCA. It’s that simple. Wilkins found out the hard way but by the grace of God LAP repented. Who’s next?
Well, I don’t think anyone here is calling the Westminster Standards infallible, nor are we elevating them to the level of scripture. Rather we sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Standards as the system of doctrine taught by the scriptures. In other words we accept the exegesis which underlies the Standards and believe that they faithfully transmit what the scriptures teach.
I don’t think anyone here thinks that the Westminster Standards couldn’t be amended.
I do think that those doing the amending don’t have the right to do it all by themselves, while seeming to undermine their ordination vows and contradict fundamental positions outlined in those Standards, and then complain when the church says, “No, this position is outside of the boundaries we have established for ourselves.”
True or False: The PCA has no constitutionally binding statements/decisions regarding Federal Vision?
barlow,
I’ve challenged FVers for several years to put forth their “improvements” to Westminster through their presbyteries to the GA. There’s a BCO process for that. However, to date none has done so. Draw your own conclusions.
David,
False.
The Westminster Standards are constitutionally binding. FV theology is contrary to those Standards, which Meyers pretty much admitted when he spoke about them needing to be torn down and reworked because now we’ve had all these brilliant insights into scripture (courtesy of James Jordan, NT Wright, and Norman Shepherd) which tell us that merit actually has nothing to do with salvation.
We also have a report adopted by the General Assembly to which presbyteries must give “due weight and consideration.” This report identifies the errors clearly, labels them as such, and then directs presbyteries to oversee their teaching elders in these areas.
Not only that, we have every NAPARC denomination condemning this view.
Brian,
In this disccusion, people keep assuming that 1) FV theology is monolithic and that 2) Jeff Meyer’s theology is one and the same with FV theology. In the context of a church court, we are bound to examine the views of real flesh-and-blood person. From the evidence, it appears that Missouri Presbytery has concluded that the theology of Jeff Meyers is not out of accord with the standards. They were not bound by anything in our constitution to discipline Meyers by way of his associations with the FV movement. Rather, they were bound to examine his views.
David,
Wrong on both counts. No one here that I’ve read assumes that FV is monolithic. That’s a red herring that FVers use to deflect incoming fire when they get in a crack.
Second, the evidence presented in the LOC and glossed over by MOP was specific to Meyers, not a “generic” figure. Can you provide evidence otherwise?
Lastly, I agree wholeheartedly with Brian that the Westminster Standards are binding on officers in the PCA. That’s true whether an officer thinks they are obsolete, silly or whatever. Further, officers do not have discretion to redefine the terms in the Standards to make it fit their aberrant theology like a wax nose.
This isn’t our first rodeo. You should really come up with a new argument. FV has already over-used all the ones I’ve heard from MOP supporters so far to the point of becoming cliche-ish.
Elliott P.,
You stated 30-40% of CTS Faculty were members of MO presbytery. I just double checked on their faculty descriptions on CTS website that it is almost 50% (9 of 20 CTS Faculty are members of MO Presbytery): http://www.weswhite.net/2011/08/power-to-condemn-erroneous-opinions/#comment-11387