Missouri Presbytery received the complaint and took action at their meeting on Tuesday, January 18 to form an administrative committee to review the complaint and instructed the committee to report a recommendation to the next Stated Meeting of the Presbytery in April.

Earlier this week, and in anticipation of a scheduled meeting of Missouri Presbytery to be held in St. Louis on Tuesday, January 18, two members of the Presbytery filed a complaint against an action of the Presbytery.

As previously reported http://bit.ly/i4guLV, Missouri Presbytery held a special ‘called’ meeting on January 8 to take action on an investigation of nearly nine months concerning the public writing of one of their members, TE Jeffrey Meyers, pastor of Providence PCA in the St. Louis suburbs. At that meeting, the Presbytery approved the report which exonerated TE Meyers and found that there was not a strong presumption of guilt which would lead to a trial in this case.

Members of a Presbytery who believe an action taken by a Presbytery is wrong have the right to ‘complain’ against that action, and Teaching Elder M. Jay Bennett (who until recently was an Assistant Pastor at Twin Oaks PCA in the St. Louis area) and Teaching Elder Joseph Rolison (pastor of Redeemer PCA in Columbia, MO) took that action and filed a lengthy complaint (see full text of complaint below).

Missouri Presbytery received the complaint and took action at their meeting on Tuesday, January 18 to form an administrative committee to review the complaint and instructed the committee to report a recommendation to the next Stated Meeting of the Presbytery in April. At that point, one of two things could happen:

· The Presbytery could deny the complaint, which would be to say they continue to believe what they decided on January 8. The complainants (or just one of them) then have the option of dropping the issue or complaining to the Standing Judicial Commission of the General Assembly and ask them to decide the issue; or,

· The Presbytery could approve the complaint and either carry out the amends requested at the end of the complaint to find that there is, indeed, a strong presumption of guilt necessitating a trial of TE Meyers to officially determine if he is out of accord with the standards of the church, or perhaps form a new commission to investigate the charges more fully based on the issues raised in the complaint.

Two men, TE’s Charles Kuykendall and Sean Sawyers, also signed their name to the complaint after the meeting. This was within their rights, since a member of a court has thirty days to complain the action of a court.

The text of the complaint is provided below:

Complaint Against Exoneration of TE Jeffrey Meyers

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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.”

3. 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).

4. 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.

a. 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).

b. 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).

c. 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.

d. 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).

e. 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 ).

Amends:

2. 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.
3. 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.

[Editor’s note: Some of the original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]