A panel of five members of the Standing Judicial Commission was assigned action on a complaint brought by 5 Teaching Elders and 5 Ruling Elders in Missouri Presbytery (MOP), claiming that the Presbytery erred in its decisions concerning its dealing with matters regarding the theological teachings of TE Jeffrey Meyers. Their preliminary report has been released.

The matter began when the Stated Clerk of MOP received a “Letter of Concern” (LOC), [letter dated 03/22/10], from 29 elders in the PCA, bringing attention to reports that TE Jeffrey Meyers is teaching Federal Vision theology contrary to the standards, and requesting that MOP proceed to a BCO 31-2 investigation into these alleged views:
1. He denies the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards.
2. He rejects the idea that Christ’s merits are imputed to us.
3. He affirms that baptism effects a saving, covenantal union with Christ.
4. He affirms that this saving union occurs with all the baptized.
5. He denies that all who are saved will ultimately end up in heaven.
6. He rejects justification by faith alone.
(The Aquila Report ran stories on this letter here and here. Meyers response to the letter is here.)

After receiving the letter of concern, MOP set up a Committee to Investigate the allegations (here) a few weeks later. That Committee met for nearly nine months and reported its findings to the Presbytery at a Called Meeting in January of this year. They determined that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt regarding the teachings of TE Meyers in the doctrines listed by the letter of complaint, and the Presbytery voted to approve the report (stories here and here).

At a Stated Meeting of MOP just a few weeks later, several members complained against that report “in determining that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Jeffrey Meyers”. In response, MOP formed a Complaint Review Committee to study the complaint and report back to MOP (story here).

At the following meeting in April, MOP voted to deny the initial complaint from January (story here). This set the stage for the complaint to which the SJC panel has issued its preliminary report. The 10 Complainants maintained that MOP erred by determining that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings and views of TE Meyers in spite of the fact that the “investigation uncovered clear and unambiguous evidence that the reports were true” [ROC p. 1], and correspondingly in their failure to institute process against TE Meyers per BCO 31-2.

In their recommended findings the panel came to the following conclusions:

The Record in this matter suggests that there are aspects of the teachings of TE Meyers that are in conflict with our Standards. These teachings could reasonably be deemed to be injurious to the peace and purity of the church (BCO 13-9(f))…However, given the many and varied conflicting statements and writings attributed to and acknowledged by TE Meyers as his own regarding the doctrinal issues raised that at best are confusing and at worst do not appear to be in conformity with our Standards, this court cannot defer to the lower court’s “relativized” judgment…

This case demonstrates the need for our courts to address directly specific issues and situations as they arise, rather than adopting broad in thesi statements in hopes that, by doing so, the disputes or disagreements within the Church will be resolved. No charge can be brought, or discipline imposed, based solely on such an in thesi statement or a pastoral letter. Nor can a Presbytery find no strong presumption of guilt on concerns raised of a minister’s views based on his having participated in the formation of and approval of such an in thesi statement…

Additionally, the panel recommends adoption of a statement expressing the view that the original Letter of Concern itself would have better served the entire process had it state explicitly the views, beliers, and practices with they found objectionable:

In cases where the views, beliefs, and practices of men (or courts) are called into question, it might actually be a better approach for the party who is concerned about these views, beliefs, and practices to make such inquiries as are necessary and practical (cf. Matthew 18:15) to ascertain exactly what these views, beliefs, and practices are; then, assuming they are believed to be contrary to Scripture or our Constitution, formally file a “charge” pursuant to BCO 32-2 and 32-3. This procedure not only removes the difficulty in determining the question of whether or not a “strong” presumption of guilt exists (BCO 31-2), but also allows a court to try directly the issue raised in the “charge” (BCO 32-3). Furthermore, this procedure will require an accurate record of the questions and answers given in both direct and cross-examination, in that all testimony shall be recorded and become a part of the Record, should any person desire further review of the lower court’s decision (BCO 35-7). This approach would avoid the error of misunderstanding that an accused is to be presumed innocent until a BCO 31-2 investigation “should prove him guilty” [ROC p. 278]. An accused is presumed innocent until he confesses his guilt or he is proven guilty via a properly conducted trial with all of its benefits of due process. Major inconsistencies of doctrine should be adjudicated. This process would allow for the accused to be exonerated, if the allegations raised against him are found to be in error; or otherwise to be found guilty of the charges.

The Manual of the Standing Judicial Commission clearly spells out the next steps, including time for the parties to ask for a rehearing before the full SJC. With or without the full hearing, the full SJC must vote at its next meeting, currently scheduled for March 1-2, 2012. It requires at least a majority vote of the full commission to approve the recommended findings, before the Presbytery will be required to take the case to trial.

SJCM 17-5: Proposed and recommended judgments of a Judicial Panel are not binding on the parties, but the Stated Clerk shall mail the parties a copy of the panel’s proposed decision and inform the parties of their right to request a rehearing before the full Standing Judicial Commission. If any party desires a rehearing by the full Commission, such request must be filed with the Stated Clerk within 14 days after receipt of said Panel’s proposed and recommended decision…

The entire text of JUDICIAL CASE 2011-6, PRELIMINARY DECISION OF THE PANEL
Complaint of TE Sean F. Sawyers, et. al Vs. Missouri Presbytery can be found here.