Editor’s Note: On March 29, 2010 The Aquila Report published an open letter to Missouri Presbytery which contained allegations against a Teaching Elder in that he had publically taught views concerning Federal Vision Theology that were contrary to the Westminster Confession. This story explains the process to date of dealing with that letter in Missouri Presbytery.

On April 20, 2010 the Missouri Presbytery held its stated meeting at Grace Presbyterian Church, St. Charles, Mo. That afternoon a “Letter of Concern” regarding the teachings of TE Jeffrey Meyers, pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, dated Mar. 22, 2010 was distributed to those present, minus the appendix entitled, “How Jeffrey Meyers Opposes the Westminster Standards.”

An electronic version of the letter, including the appendix, had been sent by the Clerk to all senior and solo pastors with instructions to get copies to all ruling elder delegates and other members of Presbytery in their churches. Moderator Ron Lutjens was unable to attend the morning hours of the Stated Meeting because of his wife’s surgery that day but arrived to moderate for this particular issue. The record states:

Moderator TE Ron Lutjens arrived and opened this part of the Administrative Committee’s report by reading from the Preface to the Book of Church Order, Preliminary Principles 3, 4, & 5 and Section I, the King and Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, and then opening in prayer.

In his opening remarks the Moderator underscored the seriousness of the whole matter before the Presbytery, and then read the full text of the letter from 29 signatories alleging that one of our presbyters, TE Jeffrey Meyers, teaches in opposition to our Westminster Standards. The Moderator then read the introduction and the first denial from TE Meyers’ formal statement entitled “My Response To Recent Accusations.”

The moderator then read BCO 31-2 and indicated that a motion to erect an investigative committee according to BCO 31-2 was being brought to the presbytery by the Administrative Committee.

TE Jeff Meyers was acknowledged and stated that he too was asking for an investigation on the grounds that he is aggrieved and his ministry has been injured by these allegations and the way they had been made public from the outset.

1004-25 MOVED, SECONDED AND PASSED that Presbytery erect a committee to investigate the allegations regarding TE Meyers’ theological views (received in the letter dated 3-22-10) and report back to presbytery in the fall or at its stated meeting in October 2010.

1004-26 MOVED, SECONDED AND PASSED to appoint the following slate of men to serve on the Committee to investigate the allegations regarding TE Meyers’ theological views, allowing the Moderator, with concurrence of the Administrative Committee of Presbytery to complete the committee with a couple of more men, including another Ruling Elder. The committee will be divided into two subcommittees: one investigating the theological views of TE Jeff Meyers in light of the allegations against him (Andrew VanderMaas, Stephen Estock, Will Barker, David Chapman, Ryan Laughlin). The second to investigate TE Jeff Meyer’s contention that he is aggrieved by this report that has come in the form of allegations against his teaching because it has been injurious to him and his ministry (TE Bob Burns, RE David Yates, TE Mark Ryan).

1004-27 MOVED, SECONDED AND PASSED to move into Executive Session at 2:00PM, allowing all present ruling elders of the Providence Reformed PC to remain.

1004-29 MOVED, SECONDED AND PASSED that Presbytery come out of Executive Session at 3:33PM.

As a point of clarification it should be noted that, while the minutes record the full text of the “Letter of Concern” was read out loud in the meeting, that did not include the appendix entitled “How Jeffrey Meyers Opposes the Westminster Standards.” Again, that part of the letter was only distributed in the electronic version sent to senior and solo pastors before the meeting.

As recorded in 1004-27, Presbytery went into Executive Session. There we discussed how to respond to the twenty-nine signatories of the “Letter of Concern,” and, after deciding what action to take, arose from Executive Session without reporting the action in the Open Minutes. Therefore, the action that was decided upon is, as of now, being considered confidential. This is something I just learned in the last couple weeks. My confusion was due to what follows.

When the Open Session minutes for the April 20, 2010 Stated Meeting were first distributed in preparation for their approval at the July 20, 2010 Stated Meeting, I noticed the record of the motion summarizing the action taken in response to the twenty-nine signatories was missing. Since it is my understanding that church courts cannot take secret actions, on the morning of the July Stated Meeting I discussed the issue with our Clerk, informing him of my concern. He assured me that in Executive Session later that afternoon Presbytery would be voting to approve the final wording of the record of that action for the Open Session minutes of the April 20, 2010 Stated Meeting.

When the time came, we moved into Executive Session and the record of the motion was projected onto a screen. Then, just before we voted to approve its wording, I raised my hand, gained the floor, and asked if what we were voting on would be recorded in the Open Session minutes of the April 20, 2010 Stated Meeting. I was told by the Clerk that it would be. Presbytery then voted to approve the wording with the understanding that it would be spread across the Open Session minutes of the April meeting. Since then, it had been my understanding that the action taken in response to the twenty-nine signatories of the “Letter of Concern” was spread across the Open Session minutes of the April 20, 2010 Stated Meeting.

But recently, after deciding to report on our actions, I contacted our Clerk to request the Open and Executive Session minutes of the April meeting. I wanted to get the exact wording of the motion summarizing the action taken in response to the twenty-nine signatories. This record has not been distributed to the Presbyters. It was then that I learned something surprising.

There is an unresolved question among the Administrative Committee as to whether the action taken should be spread across the Open Session minutes, and until that question is answered the Administrative Committee does not want to release the record of the motion summarizing the action to the rest of the Presbyters. The Administrative Committee is, for now, keeping it as part of the Presbytery’s Executive Session minutes. Of course, this raised a lot of questions in my mind.

I’ve since spoken with both the Clerk and the Moderator. The Moderator’s understanding from the beginning has been that the action was confidential and therefore not to be spread across the Open Session minutes. The Clerk’s understanding was contrary to the Moderator’s and aligned with mine, which explains why he answered me the way he did at the July meeting. Both in my personal conversation with him in the morning and in answer to my question on the floor during Executive Session, he was assuming the practice common in our presbyteries of reporting all actions out of Executive Session. But the Moderator, on the other hand, was persuaded that according to Robert’s Rules actions taken in Executive Session can remain confidential.

One practical difficulty here was that the Moderator was on sabbatical and therefore absent from the meeting. Once he returned from sabbatical and addressed the issue with the Clerk, the difference in their understanding of parliamentary requirements vis-à-vis Executive Session minutes became apparent. The Administrative Committee is currently seeking counsel from parliamentarians on this matter.

Finally, in retrospect, let me acknowledge that it was I and my fellow Presbyters’ responsibility to clarify whether the action taken in the Executive Session of the April meeting was in fact reported in Open Session and, upon finding out that it wasn’t, to object to it at that meeting. There was confusion on my part as well as others as to exactly when Executive Session ended. Also, for me at least, there was confusion as to what was proper procedure for reporting the action taken. I didn’t know that the court had to actually report the action by verbally stating it in the Open Session in order for it to be recorded in the Open Session minutes. I am learning Robert’s Rules as I go and still have a lot to learn.

The Administrative Committee of the Missouri Presbytery is determining at this time a date for a called meeting to receive the reports of the investigative committee.
___________________
Rev. M. Jay Bennett is Teacher Elder in the PCA and is a member of Missouri Presbytery. He is currently serving as an Assistant Pastor of Twin Oaks Presbyterian Church in Ballwin, Mo.