The Jonesboro 7 had suffered long and hard; they had been falsely accused, falsely convicted, barred from the Lord’s Table, but finally the Lord had vindicated His lambs, and He vindicated them through the ordinary Presbyterian process. It just took a while. But God did more than vindicate His lambs.

Editorial Note: What follows relies on official court filings and recollections by observers of a hearing before the PCA General Assembly’s Standing Judicial Commission.
This is Part Five in a series. You can read Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four. I have also written about this matter on PCA Polity. I have also collaborated with Zach Lott and TE Jonathan Brooks here to highlight the faithful submission of the men to the edicts of the Session.
You may listen to the Westminster Standard episode with Paul Harrell and Dominic Aquila here as Mr Harrell discusses his experiences and God’s faithfulness in trial.
A growing church plant in Jonesboro, Ark. was nearing the point of becoming a particular congregation of the PCA. A meeting for October 2020 had been scheduled to petition Covenant Presbytery for particularization and to elect officers. Seven men from the congregation, however, had concerns about TE Jeff Wreyford, the man called by Covenant Presbytery as church planter; they perceived him as too progressive, insufficiently focused on cultivating a distinctively Reformed and Presbyterian congregation, too quick to give up the pulpit, and overbearing.1
They took their concerns to both TE Wreyford as well as the Temporary Session overseeing the work; they indicated they would like to consider other candidates for pastor rather than TE Wreyford, whom the Session preferred to offer to the congregation.
The Session responded to the concerns of these men by investigating, indicting, convicting, and censuring the men. After the men appealed Session’s judgment, TE Jeff Wreyford resigned along with the rest of the Session, who were all on staff or elders at IPC Memphis.
TE Ed Norton travelled down from Memphis to Jonesboro to be part of a meeting to announce the Session’s resignation to the congregation and to inform them of their options going forward, since the Session was recommending closing the church due to the trouble the Session perceived in the congregation.
The meeting, audio of which was provided, was tense. Numerous questions were asked at the meeting. Members objected to not being consulted regarding the severance paid to TE Wreyford. Others wanted the Session to wait until the discipline case ran its course rather than give up on the little church mid-stream.
One man wondered what would happen if the Jonesboro 7 were exonerated on appeal. TE Norton explained he was unable to go into details of the case, but promised,
“Let’s say the commission comes back and they find for the Jonesboro…individuals … for me personally, I’d come back and apologize, because that’s what Christians do. We openly and readily confess…that’s part of the process…We are repentant…that’s part of the process…there’s never health in any body of believers unless there is confession and repentance, so you would find me coming back.”
The Presbytery Judicial Commission denied the appeal of the Jonesboro 7. So the men took their case to the General Assembly and prayed that God would grant them impartial judges, judges who were concerned for evidence, elders for whom words would have meaning, and elders who would be faithful to their vows to uphold the Scripture and the PCA Constitution.
A Lengthy Season of Waiting
Readers will recall Presbytery declined to give up on the church plant and instead appointed a new Session to oversee the work there.
Despite a new Session, the judgment of the old Session still hung over them; the men were still prohibited from partaking, by faith, in Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Table. The men were still excluded from voting in any congregational meeting because of the judgment against them by the old Session. As such, it was necessary to appeal the case to the General Assembly.
An appeal to General Assembly takes time; it is worthy to remember the trouble began August 31, 2020 when the “Jonesboro 7” raised concerns with the Session regarding the Session’s preferred candidate for pastor. The Session sent a “Letter of Admonishment” with demands on September 9, 2020; Covenant Presbytery later ruled the letter imposed unlawful injunctions upon the men on May 18, 2021.
But just before Presbytery’s ruling against the Session, the men were indicted on May 5, 2021 by their Session for violations of the Fifth and Ninth Commandments. The Session tried, found them guilty, and barred them from the Lord’s Table in July 2021, which they appealed to Covenant Presbytery; Presbytery denied the appeal May 17, 2022. On May 23, 2022 the “Jonesboro 7” finally appealed to the PCA General Assembly. Their hearing before a panel of the Assembly’s Judicial Commission (SJC) was October 31, 2022.
I note these dates because it is important to recognize how long the process sometimes takes in order for justice to be rightly done and rightly received. In such times, it is vital to wait on the Lord, to remember those who suffer for the sake of Righteousness are blessed, and that God will vindicate His Name and His cause in His own time.
The Jonesboro 7 were represented at the hearing before the SJC by TE Dominic Aquila, a former SJC judge and past Moderator of the General Assembly.
Defending Presbytery’s Judgment
The hearing before a panel of the SJC was conducted virtually on October 31, 2022. It had many memorable exchanges, some of which will be conveyed in what follows.
Covenant Presbytery was represented before the SJC by TE Robert Browning, the Clerk of Covenant Presbytery and also on staff at IPC Memphis as well as RE Josh Sanford an employment lawyer from Little Rock, Ark. TE Tim Reed, who served on the Presbytery’s Judicial Commission assisted on the Presbytery’s Respondent team also.
Prior to the hearing, each side submitted Briefs framing the case. Presbytery’s Brief was curious in that it spent three of its eight pages summarizing the facts of the case rather than making a defense of the Presbytery’s findings. When the Presbytery’s Brief finally does begin to make its case, it draws from facts not related to the original charges or trial and seems somewhat to fixate on the fact the Jonesboro 7 had a former SJC judge, TE Dominic Aquila, helping them prepare their defense. All of which are irrelevant to a finding of guilt on the matters for which the Jonesboro 7 were indicted.
Improper Evidence? Or any Evidence?
Presbytery’s Respondents asserted in their Brief that the trial audio and transcript did not reveal any admission of improper evidence nor a denial of proper evidence. The Presbytery attempted to establish sufficient evidence of guilt by means of Prosecutor TE Mike Malone’s closing assertions:
“the transcript and audio recording of the trial summarized by the Prosecutor showed sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellants were guilty of the offenses for which they were charged.”2
This is an important point; the SJC judges would later query not whether there was improper evidence of guilt admitted, but whether there was any guilt established. One Presbytery Respondent would concede before the SJC panel there was not much evidence put on at trial. Much of the hearing would center on questions from SJC judges asking not whether there was “much” evidence, but whether there was even a modicum of evidence.
Why Didn’t They Complain?
Covenant Presbytery’s Respondents would try to argue the claim of the Jonesboro 7 regarding the indictments being unconstitutionally vague was invalid because they did not complain (BCO 43) against the action of Session in drawing the indictments the way Session did. The Respondents attempted to portray the Jonesboro 7 as guilty rogues for not complaining against such indictments.
Covenant Presbytery tried to use the lack of a complaint against the unconstitutional indictments to show the Jonesboro 7 had a “disregard for those who were exercising proper spiritual oversight.”3
But what Covenant Presbytery’s Respondents failed to consider is that the PCA Constitution does not permit intermittent appeals, i.e. to complain in the midst of judicial process (BCO 43-1). A member of the SJC panel would later point this out to the Presbytery’s Respondents.
The only option open to the Jonesboro 7 was to see the process through and suffer under a process the SJC would later describe as having been abused. But as we’ll discuss later, the men’s use of process would later be proffered as evidence of guilt by Covenant Presbytery’s respondents.
As noted in Part One, this is perhaps an opportunity to further perfect the PCA Constitution.
The Indictments Were Valid…
Throughout the process, the Jonesboro 7 pressed their claim that the indictments against them were unconstitutionally vague. Presbytery’s Respondents countered that since the “Appendix G” to the BCO is simply advisory, the Session did not have to provide the specifics to how the men had sinned “in the days leading up to and following August 3, 2020…” in violation of the Fifth and Ninth Commandments. The Presbytery’s Brief did not interact at length with BCO 32-5, which states,
In drawing the indictment, the times, places and circumstances should, if possible, be particularly stated, that the accused may have an opportunity to make his defense. (emphasis added)
In denying the appeal, Covenant Presbytery asserted the phrase if possible provides “discretion to a court in specifying the particulars of ‘the times, places and circumstances’ in drawing up an indictment.”4 Covenant Presbytery’s interpretation of BCO 32-5 in the Harrell case is outrageous and does violence to the fundamentals of justice.
The SJC would later correct Covenant Presbytery’s fallacious reasoning and remind them the phrase, “if possible,” establishes a burden on the prosecutor and does not grant discretion to the Court. The PCA General Assembly would later describe the Temporary Session’s failure to include specifics in an indictment as, “unfair to an accused and violates basic principles of due process as required by our standards.”5
It is impossible to overstate the weight of Covenant Presbytery’s error on this point. The members of Covenant Presbytery would do well to adopt something enshrining the basic principles of due process in their Standing Rules, since a number of influential members of their Presbytery apparently failed to grasp basic principles of fairness and due process in this case (and continued to do so even in the Supplemental Brief; see below).
Until corrective action is taken in Covenant Presbytery, what happened to the Jonesboro 7 by a Session of Elders largely from IPC Memphis could happen again to anyone under that Presbytery’s jurisdiction.
Presbytery’s Arguments Not Accepted by SJC Panel

Read More
Related Posts:

God in His providence, chose to send His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world when He did. Christ could have come to save the world during the time of cell phones and live streaming, but He didn’t. God chose to send His Son in the fullness of time, and to have the proclamation of His work be done through the Word. In short, God gave us a book, and it was not by accident that He did so.

I don’t watch much television these days, and don’t tend to keep up with what is new or popular on TV. One show, however, has caught my attention because of its notoriety, and its subject matter. The Chosen, which has been on air for a few years now, seeks to depict the life and ministry of Jesus Christ in the form of a television series. The series has been met with rave reviews, with thousands of professing Christians lending their support for the series, and a 90%+ rating on major review sites. I have only heard about it because of the success it seems to be having within the church, as more and more Christians talk about it. However, I find this new excitement over The Chosen concerning, and would warn Christians from watching the show for the following 3 reasons.
The Chosen Violates The 2nd Commandment 
Christians ought to make quick work of discerning whether or not to watch The Chosen by simply recognizing that it violates the 2nd Commandment. For reference, here is the 2nd Commandment given in Exodus 20:4-6:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,  but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Additionally, the Westminster Larger Catechism 109 helpfully expounds what is forbidden in the 2nd Commandment .
Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of imageor likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
Christians wanting to obey the Scriptures ought to reject the use of images representing “God, of all or of any of the three persons.” This applies especially to any use of images in corporate worship, but also directs what kinds of shows we watch, books we read, and more. To watch The Chosen, shows a disregard for God’s law. While most watching the show, I suspect, are not doing so with the intention of going against God’s Word, the end result is still the same. We must be careful to know God’s Word, and to obey God’s Word, in all aspects of our life.
The Chosen Comes From A Concerned Source
One issue that has not been given much publicity is the explicitly non-Christian religious influence on the show’s production. The production company behind the show, Angel Studios, was founded, and is operated by two members of the Mormon faith. It is worth noting that Angel Studios also creates a product called VidAngel which is used by many Christians to help censor and filter out inappropriate content from TV shows and other streaming platforms. Still, the company now moves into the production business, and their portrayal of Jesus and his ministry is concerning.
There have been many concerns about how faithful the representation of Jesus would be to Scripture. The very nature of television leads there to be edits and interpretations to set up more dramatic encounters and dialogues. Still, one explicit example worth noting came when the show had Jesus say “I am the law of Moses,” which is found nowhere in Scripture, but is found in the Book of Mormon. It would seem the potential Mormon influence is greater than perhaps some are willing to admit. Furthermore, the situation has not been helped by the Creator, Director, Co-Writer, and Executive Producer of the show, Dallas Jenkins, who has often responded to this controversy with joking and implications that he may work more Mormon references into the show. Jenkins has also been unclear regarding his understanding of the clear distinction between Christians and Mormons, and how they are fundamentally separate faiths.
It leaves me to wonder why Christians would partake in entertainment which comes from such a concerned source. As with a poisoned well, you may get some clean water from it, but is it worth the risk? The Chosen represents a dangerous source of entertainment, which dramatically takes Jesus and his words out of context, and even allows for heresy to be brought in. Even discerning Christians are at risk watching a show like this, and the payoff of entertainment does not justify it.
We Have Something Greater Than The Chosen
Perhaps someone reading this article disagrees with me on my interpretation regarding the 2nd Commandment. Perhaps its even possible that they disagree with the alarming concern surrounding the changing of Jesus’s actions and words. I know of several Christians who believe that productions such as The Chosen are helpful, because they stir their imaginations, and raise their affections for Christ. Even if you disagree with my previous two warnings, I would like to issue a third, by demonstrating that The Chosen is far less than what you already have in God’s Word.
God in His providence, chose to send His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world when He did. Christ could have come to save the world during the time of cell phones and live streaming, but He didn’t. God chose to send His Son in the fullness of time, and to have the proclamation of His work be done through the Word. In short, God gave us a book, and it was not by accident that He did so. God speaks to us through His Word, and He has not left us with some lesser form of revelation.
In John 20, we see the famous account of Jesus and Doubting Thomas. Thomas, demands to see Jesus in order to believe. After witnessing the risen Christ, here is what Jesus declares:
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (John 20:29).
Immediately following this declaration by Jesus, John gives us his purpose statement for the entire Gospel account:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name  (John 20:30-31).
It is clear what John is doing here. Jesus speaks to Thomas, but in a way, He is speaking past Thomas, to all of the readers. We get to hear Jesus’ declaration as a message to us as well. It is not a lesser form of revelation to hear of Christ through the Word than to see Him in the flesh. In fact, Jesus here positively declares that those who hear and believe are truly blessed. Many Christians think that their faith would be so much better if only they could see Jesus for themselves – Jesus disagrees.
When I meet Christians enamored with productions like The Chosen, I’m left scratching my head. Why would we settle for something which goes against God’s law, alters the events of Jesus’ life, and takes us away from the Word of God? Surely it is far greater to regularly commune with God through His Word, sitting daily under its instruction, that our affections would be shaped by God and stoked into a greater zeal by the true Christ! For Christians who have been caught up with shows like The Chosen, my simple desire would be to point you back to the Word of God, and to discover something far greater for your soul.
Joe Cristman is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Redeemer PCA in Lombard, IL
Related Posts:

Truth Be Told is excellent for those grappling with anxiety about our culture’s loss of objectivity, refocusing our energy towards the real goal of living with integrity as people of truth. This is a welcome move away from handwringing about our generation’s “feelings over facts” tendencies and gives us something we can work on: our trust in God and growth in holiness. In an age of relativity, people will treasure their “truths”, just as we should treasure our own.

Truth be told, I’m terrible at reading Christian books. I read and listen to all sorts of things. But I have always struggled to get into Christian books.
I was particularly sceptical when I first researched Lionel Windsor’s Truth Be Told. Exploring truth in a post-truth world requires robust engagement with theology and culture, and seemed to me in great danger of being simplistic. A Christian book about “post-truth” could fall into merely critiquing our culture, without actually helping Christians learn to engage with it.
Truth be told? I was wrong.
Dog Whistles to Culture Warriors
Windsor is acutely aware his readers will disagree with him on various points (8). In our postmodern and post-truth world, words can act as dog whistles[1] and trigger people to action in unhelpful ways. Words such as “misinformation” and “cancel culture” seem to act as identity markers—revealing a person’s view on social issues like gender identity, climate change, medical science, and politics. I find myself wary (and weary) of these words as they can fail to convey complexity, compassion and grace whilst affirming the eternal truth of our holy and loving God. Windsor writes as one conscious of cultural minefields and carefully engages with the issues of our secular world.
A Biblical Treatment of Challenging Cultural Issues
Part 1 approaches many important issues with an accessible systematic theology, tackling fake news, digital technology, institutional corruption, relativism, and the cultural shift from post-modernism to post-truth. It concludes by pastorally addressing our propensity to falsehood, reminding us that we are not above it just because we are Christians.
It’s not just the besetting challenge of the postmodern zeitgeist. It’s all of those things but more. The problem is here, on the ground. It’s you and me. Truth is in trouble in our hearts. (66)
Instead of grinding out a token theology chapter to anchor his topical explorations, Windsor dedicates Part 2 of his book to a comprehensive exploration of what Scripture says about truth. This fresh way of tackling the “Bible bit” manages to slice the issue from different angles. He moves through the Old Testament, the Gospel of John, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Corinthians, each chapter exploring themes with direct application for Christians living in a broken, complicated, post-truth world.
Read More
Related Posts: