The Jonesboro 7 did not merely want a man to whom MNA had given the “green light,” they wanted a man in whom they had confidence. They wanted a pastor who would lead the congregation in the old paths of the Reformed Faith. As Mr Lance Schackleford put it: “We wanted a reformed Presbyterian church here, PCA church.” And the Jonesboro 7 were not confident TE Wreyford would do that.

Editorial Note: What follows will be controversial and disturbing. Reader discretion is advised. In preparing this series, official documents and public comments have been extensively used to compose the narrative. No attempt is made to assign motives to any of the parties in this case. Reference will be made to inferences drawn by the judges on the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission as they carefully reviewed the case and noted the process was “abused” and offenses “imagined” by a Temporary Session of Elders against the Jonesboro 7. Any objection to the use of the term “abused” should be directed to the SJC Judges rather than the author of this series who simply reports the judgment of the PCA General Assembly regarding the actions of the Temporary Session in this case.
This is part two of four; you may read part one here.
The church plant needed to be dissolved; its culture was “toxic,” the members of Covenant Presbytery were told. The Christ Redeemer church plant had already been the source of one complaint (BCO 43) adjudicated by Presbytery and now seven men from the congregation had been investigated (BCO 31-2), indicted (BCO 32-5), found guilty, and censured with “indefinite” suspension from the Sacraments (BCO 30-2). And now they were appealing their case to the Presbytery.
The members of the temporary Session (BCO 5-3) had resigned, the church planter and staff had been paid out severances. All that remained was to close up shop; the church was “toxic” after all.
Given the summary of facts above it would be easy to conclude the members – or at least a significant portion of them – were “toxic.” Investigations, indictments, trials, censures, appeals, complaints, and all this before the congregation was even particularized? Surely the best thing for Covenant Presbytery and the PCA to do was shut it down, wash their hands of it, and get out of Jonesboro.
But all was not as it seemed.
Tucked away in the 2023 Commissioner Handbook with all the other decisions from the PCA General Assembly’s Standing Judicial Commission is Harrell, et. al. v. Covenant Presbytery. As I read it recently, however, I was shaken, I was grieved, I was genuinely frightened and scandalized by what happened to the Jonesboro 7.
But as I read I was also profoundly encouraged and grateful for the integrity of the judges who sit on the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission. They observed a case in which the process had been “abused” such that seven of Christ’s lambs were falsely convicted, censured, and – after a timely appeal of the verdict – their elders all resigned and recommended the church plant be dissolved.
A Question of Fit
In 2015, Christ Redeemer PCA began meeting as a church plant of Covenant Presbytery. TE Jeff Wreyford was called by Presbytery to be the “organizing pastor” to begin the work in Jonesboro (BCO 5-5a) and a Session of Ruling and Teaching Elders from IPC Memphis was appointed by Presbytery to serve alongside him (BCO 15-1). Importantly, TE Wreyford was not the pastor called by the church; he was called by Presbytery as the church planter/organizing pastor.
The work was going well; the congregation, according to Mr Paul Harrell, was gathering about 45 people each Lord’s Day by 2020 and it seemed to Harrell and others that the church plant was getting close to becoming a “particular church” (i.e. no longer a church plant with a Session of elders from other churches, but a congregation that has called its own pastor and elected its own elders and deacons).
The Lord was doing great works in Jonesboro at the church plant, yet several men in the church had reservations about the philosophy of ministry they perceived in TE Wreyford. The SJC notes Stephen Leiniger and Wesley Hurston met with TE Wreyford to share “a set of concerns” they and others had about his ministry.
To be clear, they did not accuse TE Wreyford of anything unethical or immoral; it was simply that they did not think he was a good fit or supported by a significant portion of the congregation to be elected the permanent pastor (BCO 5-9f).
Later on August 30, 2020 seven men from seven different households in the church plant met with the “entire Session” to again share their concern that TE Wreyford was not suited to be the pastor of the congregation once it was organized into a particular church.
Mr Stephen Leininger summarized the position of the Jonesboro 7 saying simply, “In our opinion…Jeff is not the one to be the pastor of Christ Redeemer as it particularizes and moves to its next level of ministry. We recommend that Jeff remove his name from consideration as pastor.”
In a meeting with the Jonesboro 7, TEs Ed Norton and Clint Wilcke responded to their concerns of the church members about TE Wreyford by highlighting the credentials and qualifications possessed by TE Wreyford and the fact that MNA assessment had given him the “green light.”
But the Jonesboro 7 insisted, despite the endorsements TE Wreyford had received and his credentials and degrees, the issue was many in the congregation simply disagreed with TE Wreyford’s philosophy of ministry. The “Jonesboro 7” explained they were more traditional in their subscription to the Reformed Faith than the philosophy of ministry they had observed in TE Wreyford.
No amount of endorsements from MNA or church planting networks could overcome the reservations the men had with TE Wreyford’s philosophy of ministry. They wanted a PCA church in Jonesboro that was distinctively, historically Reformed in character.
Read More
Related Posts:

The beauty of Psalm 23 is that it is so simple and clear that it almost needs no interpretation or exposition. It is short, easily memorized, and it has poetic images and a lyrical tilt which has lodged this song in the collective consciousness of every believer through the ages. But when you unload the metaphor of the Lord as our shepherd within the psalm, then the riches of all its verses shine all the brighter.

This article is part of the What Does It Mean? series.
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.—Psalm 23:1
God as Shepherd
If you had a blank canvas to sketch a single picture of Israel’s exodus from slavery, what would you draw? The picture in your mind’s eye is possibly not the one the Bible depicts.
Psalm 77 portrays God’s redemption of his people from Egypt in this way:
Your way was through the sea,your path through the great waters;yet your footprints were unseen.You led your people like a flockby the hand of Moses and Aaron. —Ps. 77:19–2
Observe the imagery in Psalm 78 as well:
He struck down every firstborn in Egypt,The firstfruits of their strength in the tents of Ham.Then he led out his people like sheepand guided them in the wilderness like a flock.He led them in safety, so that they were not afraid,but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.—Ps 78:51–53
So when the Bible puts the exodus, the great event of Israel’s redemption, on Instagram what do we see? A divine shepherd leading his flock of under-shepherds and sheep through terrible danger to complete safety. God is a shepherd.
What kind of shepherd is he?
All-Powerful God
God’s rescue of his people in the book of Exodus is preceded by his revelation of his name to Moses at the burning bush. “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you’” (Ex. 3:14). This unusual rendering of the Hebrew verb “to be” points to “One who remains constant because he is independent.”1 God is who he is without us. He is who is from before we were until after we have been. God’s existence is from himself and for himself, and there is nothing about him derived from anyone or anything else. He is absolutely self-sufficient self-existence.
This is illustrated by the burning bush where Moses encounters God. As Sinclair Ferguson says, “The fire that was in the bush was not dependent on the bush for its energy to burn. It was a most pure fire, a fire that was nothing but fire, a fire that was not a compound of other energy sources but had its energy source in itself.”2There is such wonderful beauty here that it is worth just lingering over this. Consider these words of Alexander Maclaren:
The fire that burns and does not burn out, which has no tendency to destruction in its very energy, and is not consumed by its own activity, is surely a symbol of the One Being, whose being derives its law and its source from itself, who can only say—“I am that I am” —the law of his nature, the foundation of his being, the only conditions of his existence being, as it were, enclosed within the limits of his own nature. You and I have to say, “I am that which I have become,” or “I am that which I was born,” or “I am that which circumstances have made me.” He said, “I am that I am.” All other creatures are links; this is the staple from which they all hang. All other being is derived, and therefore limited and changeful; this being is underived, absolute, self-dependent, and therefore unalterable forevermore. Because we live, we die. In living, the process is going on of which death is the end. But God lives forevermore. A flame that does not burn out; therefore his resources are inexhaustible, his power unwearied. He needs no rest for the recuperation of wasted energy. His gifts diminish not the store which he has to bestow. He gives and is none the poorer. He works and is never weary. He operates unspent; he loves and he loves forever. And through the ages, the fire burns on, unconsumed and undecayed.3
Doesn’t this help us see how incredible it is that the Lord should be our shepherd? I believe the point of this revelation of who God is to Moses was precisely to assure him that the impossible was about to happen for God’s people in Egypt, because the infinite, eternal God had come to lead them home. It is because of who God is that the exodus happens at all and why it succeeds. He is the all-powerful One.
Read More
Related Posts:

The gospel will mean we’re compelled to love and reach out to the lost, both the good and the bad, no matter where people put themselves on that ladder we reach out to them.  We seek the lost as Jesus did.  We live our life out in front of them. There are times when we may have fewer non-believing friends as maybe some come to faith, as maybe others move away, as things change.  But we’ll always be looking to build friendships, to live out the gospel, to share Jesus.

Luke again shows us Jesus passion for the lost and his expansive grasp and grip on the grace of God and the reach of the gospel.  It’s worth noticing where Jesus is, in ch5 he’s eating with tax collectors and sinners, but now he’s eating with the religious, the good people.  Why?  Because everybody needs salvation and the gospel can reach anyone as Jesus makes clear to Simon.
Jesus has a reputation for welcoming sinners, this woman(37), notorious though she is, knows she can go to Jesus for forgiveness.  It would be great wouldn’t it if that could be said of our churches?
We had a lady come to church, until her family were evicted and relocated.  She had a bit of a reputation, when her neighbours heard she and her family came, and were accepted, welcomed and loved, their response was, ‘Well if she can come, so can we.’  That ought to be the norm.  Church is where no perfect people are allowed, and no pretence at perfection is allowed either.
Jesus doesn’t turn this lady away.  He knows the depth of her sin in a way Simon doesn’t, he also knew what it would cost him to forgive her in a way Simon didn’t and yet he knows the gospel is a call for all those who repent to come and find forgiveness.
(41-47)We see Jesus understanding of the gospel as he tells this story to Simon.  What do you notice about the two men?  They both owed money and neither could repay it – they are the facts.  Both are debtors both incapable of paying the debt they owe.  These aren’t insignificant sums of money a Denarii was about a days wage – so one man owes two months wages and another about a year and three quarters.
The shock in the story is in how the money lender reacts. You didn’t just write off debts, yet these two men are forgiven their un-payable debts.  The story is a shock story, it’s unbelievable!  But what’s Jesus point?
We live in a society that loves to compare don’t we.  We compare exam results, we compare achievements, what you’ve read, who you know, there’s even a website where you can compare salaries with other people.  But we also do it with morality.
It’s a bit like a ladder we put people like Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King near the top, then at the bottom are people like terrorists, murderers…
Where would you put yourself?  When we think about that, we go through a process like this; I’m better than so and so, but not as good as them.
That’s exactly how Simon is operating here.  He’d be up here and she’d be down there.  But do you see what the biggest shock is? Jesus says wherever you are the debt is un-payable – “neither could pay him back.”  Simon’s little sin, as he sees it, leaves him just as lost as the woman’s big sin, just as incapable of rebalancing the scales.
Jesus words were shocking then and they still shock now, it tells us we owe a debt we can’t repay, that being right with God isn’t comparative with one another.  You and I were never nice.  We didn’t just need a bit of tidying up round the edges, a quick make over.
Read More
Related Posts: