“ . . . no one school of interpretation on these disputed issues should be adopted as the only orthodox position to the exclusion of the others.” (Report of the Complaint Review Committee, 62)

On January 8, 2011, Missouri Presbytery (MP) completed a Book of Church Order (BCO) 31-2 investigation of Federal Visionist TE Jeffrey Meyers and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to raise a strong presumption of guilt (and thus go to trial) in the teachings of TE Meyers in the areas of covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance, and justification.

On January 16, 2011, TEs Joseph Rollison and Jay Bennett complained against this action of MP. On April 19, MP convened and heard the report of its Complaint Review Committee (CRC) recommending that MP deny the complaint against the exoneration of TE Meyers. MP adopted the recommendations of its CRC.

The complaint alleged that MP had erred in four areas. They alleged that the presbytery had erred in its bias against the 29 signers of a letter that had originally requested the investigation; in its failure to properly weigh the evidence against TE Meyers; in its failure to address the concerns of the signers precisely; and in its failure to find a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Meyers in the areas of covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance and justification.

You can read the full report here; a brief summary of the CRC Report (CRCR) can be found below.

Procedural Complaints

1. The first allegation was that MP had erred because they had already prejudged the case when they accused the signers of violating the 9th commandment. The complainants stated:

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.” (CRCR, 5)

The CRC countered by saying that the concern was about process and not the allegations proper. They were concerned about the signers not having spoken with TE Meyers and with the publication of the Letter of Concern (LOC) on the internet. They wrote:

We regarded both of these flaws as profound and egregious, especially the latter. The LOC was published on the Internet right away, well before Missouri Presbytery was able to respond carefully to it. Many in our Presbytery interpreted that Internet “broadcast” as virtually making public accusations against a man who had not even been properly investigated, a clear violation of due process, and something the vast majority of our presbyters found appalling. (CRCR, 7)

Since the concern was process, this did not prevent MP from conducting a fair investigation. They had not prejudged the case itself.

2. The second allegation of error was that Missouri Presbytery, in spite of their insistence that the “full corpus of what a person has written and taught” should be considered, failed to adequately consider Meyers’ professed association with the Federal Vision movement. The CRC responded that they thought that this was guilt by association. They wrote:

Wholesale, blanket condemnations of movements are usually very inaccurate and therefore unjust. No church court of the PCA has condemned everything that every person associated the FV believes and teaches. (CRCR, 12, emphasis original)

Thus, the CRC did not feel that Meyers should be condemned simply for association with the Federal Vision movement.

On this same point, the complainants were also concerned that in spite of Meyers’ professed dependence on the controversial figure James Jordan, the Missouri Investigative Committee Report (MICR) did not even mention him once. This association was so close that Meyers wrote in his book, The Lord’s Service (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2003), that “So deeply has James Jordan’s work affected my thought and life that I suspect many parts come perilously close to plagiarism.” The CRC responded as follows:

But should James Jordan’s positive influence on TE Meyers have been given as much weight as Meyers’ citation of men like O. Palmer Robertson, John Murray and Wilson Benton Jr.? We think not. . . . The burden of proof was on the complainants to demonstrate that James Jordan’s theology is so profoundly opposed to the Westminster Standards that merely claiming his influence should stimulate deep concern and investigation. In fact, complainants have demonstrated virtually nothing in regard to James Jordan. (CRCR, 15)

Thus, because the complainants had not demonstrated the heterodoxy of Mr. Jordan, the CRC did not feel stimulated to any “deep concern” over Mr. Jordan’s influence on Meyers.

3. For the sake of space, we shall skip over the third allegation of error and move on to the doctrinal complaints.

Doctrinal Complaints

1. The fourth allegation of error was that MP failed to find a strong presumption of guilt in the teachings of TE Meyers in the areas of covenant theology, the imputation of Christ’s merits, baptism, perseverance, and justification.

a. In the area of covenant theology, the complainants were concerned that TE Meyers did deny the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards as evidenced by statements like the following:

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. (CRCR, 29)

The CRC committee believed that those who held concerns about this statement evidenced a lack of charity:

Beginning broadly (and so also considering remarks contained in email extracts), it seems to the members of the CRC that TE Meyers is being read, once again, in a manner that violates the judgment of charity and the full measure of forbearance that has already been given expression in MICR II. (CRCR, 30)

As they stated elsewhere, they believed that Meyers had adequately affirmed his allegiance to the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards:

The MICR clearly attests to the fact that TE Meyers draws a distinction between the covenant before the fall and the covenant that comes after it, sometimes called the covenant of grace and expressed in various historically-conditioned covenantal arrangements (MICR, p. 9, lines 26-28). (CRCR, 25)

In regard to the specific statement by Meyers cited here, they felt satisfied with Meyers’ explanation of what he had overstated in the quote above:

I overstated my concerns with inflammatory language. That’s what I would change. The works/grace comment must be interpreted. I did not adequately explain to what I was referring. If you go back to my answers to the MICR on covenant and merit, I think you will see what I meant by this statement. It’s the overly “economic” view of the covenant of works that I have problems with. Obviously, there is a place for the biblical language of “works” verses “grace. (CRCR, 31)

Thus, with these and further qualifications, the CRC felt there was no reason to sustain the complaint.

b. In regard to the imputation of Christ’s merits, the CRC answered that while Meyers did not agree with the complainants’ understanding of the merit of Christ, Meyers was still orthodox on this point. They wrote:

Although he does not embrace the precise interpretation of the imputation of Christ’s merit held by the complainants, TE Meyers believes that the benefits of justification given to the elect (which include the favor of God and eternal life) are based solely on the righteousness of Christ, which is premised on the perfect obedience of Christ. In God’s forensic act of justification, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believing sinner. (CRCR, 40)

c. In regard to baptism, the complainants argued that Meyers believes that baptism is that which unites us to Christ. The CRC dealt with the following quotes from Meyers cited in the complaint:

“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.” (CRCR, 41).

The CRC noted the following regarding these quotes:

Although complainants present the quotes accurately and seem to provide prima facie evidence of heterodoxy, the statements were not written in the context of instruction on the efficacy of baptism. (Ibid.).

They went on to quote Meyers as saying, “I was not suggesting that baptism and not faith unite us to Christ. Paul actually uses both in that passage” (Ibid.).

In addition, they asked Meyers about a Wrightsaid post, where Meyers stated that the Apostle Paul was converted when Ananias poured water on his head because “forgiveness of sins is attached to the action.” In that same post, he went on to say: “Normally God forgives sins and grants new life in baptism.” Here is how the CRC reported on their interaction with Meyers on this point:

Are you willing to accept our judgment that your statement, “Normally God forgive sins…in baptism” is too one-sided? If not, defend it; and if you are willing, how would you restate it?

TE Meyers answered: “Yes, it is too categorical and needs qualification. But I’m not willing to restate it because, as I said in my answer to the last question, I’m not confident I can formulate a slogan that will express in the abstract, apart from concrete circumstances, exactly how God uses baptism in every situation.” (CRCR, 44)

MP felt satisfied with this explanation and denied the complaint.

d. In regard to perseverance, the CRC contended that Meyers had already answered the questions regard the perseverance of the saints thoroughly. They cited at two different points the following quotation:

The reprobate apostate does not lose eternal salvation, regeneration, justification, and a vital union with Christ by saving faith; rather, he loses many gracious gifts as well as a covenanted connection with Christ and his people in the church. I believe what I have written here is consistent with both the JFVP and the Westminster Standards. (JJM Response, p. 80, lines 3-6). (CRCR, 47)

They felt satisfied that there was no heterodoxy in Meyers’ statement and wrote:

When TE Meyers insists, as he did with the MIC, that he does not believe that people move in and out of a saving relationship with God, that only the elect enjoy the intimacy of a genuinely forgiven child with his or her Father; when he insists that he does not believe in or teach some kind of “parallel soteriology” that the reprobate might enjoy alongside the elect for a time, but then lose—the only charitable way of taking Meyers’ language that God draws sinners up into the “covenantal life” of Christ, is to put an orthodox interpretation on it, to wit, that any real spiritual benefit the reprobate might enjoy by being “in” the covenant community of the church is rooted in the very presence there of the triune God and his divine life that imbues, fills, and empowers Christ’s people for loving and for living lives of righteousness. There is nothing heretical about that at all. (CRCR, 47)

Thus, MP defended Meyers’ orthodoxy on this point.

e. In the matter of justification, the concern was that TE Meyers had stated that loyalty was a way of fleshing out the trust element in faith, thereby complicating the instrument of justification. Here is how the CRC summarized some of their interaction with Meyers on this point:

And, are you prepared to acknowledge that “personally loyal” as a description of justifying faith may—at least in some quarters—have obscured as much of the true meaning of the JFVP affirmation/denial as you had hoped it would express?

TE Meyers’ Answer: “Yes. This all strikes me as a discussion that skates perilously close to violating Paul’s warning against quarreling about words (2 Timothy 2:14). I have made my convictions about justification explicit in my carefully-worded answers to the MIC. I have stated that I have no reservations about what the Westminster Standards say about the doctrine of justification. I am sorry that the way I’ve used the words “loyal” and “loyalty” have led to such confusion. It was not my intention to subvert the doctrine of justification by Christ alone through faith alone with my informal use of terms regarding covenant loyalty and faithfulness.” (CRCR, 56)

With this, the committee felt satisfied.

Conclusion

The committee concluded by stating that this was primarily a matter of allowing two acceptable interpretations of the Westminster Standards to exist side by side in the denomination:

We believe it is crucial for the Presbytery to take full account of the long history of difference and debate within orthodox Reformed circles on the very issues raised in this controversy–differences going all the way back to the 16th and 17th centuries. Complainants, as well as the 29 signers of the original letter of concern, would have us believe that nothing less is at stake than the doctrinal integrity of our church, that the central and most precious truths of Scripture are being compromised by allowing TE Meyers to remain a minister in good standing among us. The committee rejects this conclusion most emphatically. It is true that at times TE Meyers has been too polemical and too one-sided in his theological formulations, but he has acknowledged and confessed as much, and we are convinced he has matured theologically. But we believe that this controversy over his views and teaching is, essentially, a re-presentation of old intramural disputes within the Reformed camp and must be seen—and relativized—as such. In other words, we believe that no one school of interpretation on these disputed issues should be adopted as the only orthodox position to the exclusion of the others.

That was the judgment as well of the Missouri Presbytery’s 2006 report on Federal Vision. (CRCR, 62, emphasis original)

In denying the complaint, the members of the CRC see themselves as maintaining the peace of the church by not allowing one school of interpretation of the Standards to take dominance over the other. In this way, they believe they are promoting the purity and unity of the church by maintaining the Confession and allowing the diversity of views that, according to them, have traditionally been allowed by presbyterians.

Wes White is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He is currently serving as the Pastor of New Covenant Spearfish Presbyterian Church, Spearfish, South Dakota. This article originally appeared on his web site http://weswhite.net and is used with permission

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