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:

Despite the “unfair” process deployed against the Jonesboro 7 by the Temporary Session, the men nonetheless demonstrated the strength of their commitment to the Scripture, to their membership vows, to Presbyterian Church government, and to the Reformed Faith. After the Jonesboro 7 appealed the decision of the Temporary Session to Covenant Presbytery, the Temporary Session resigned and recommended the church plant be closed. This left the congregation with little spiritual care and oversight.

Zach Lott and six other men from a small church plant in Jonesboro, Ark. wanted to see a Reformed and Presbyterian church in their town; they wanted to be part of the PCA. Covenant Presbytery had dispatched TE Jeff Wreyford to the small city as the organizing pastor. The work was going well, but Lott and several others were concerned about the trajectory of the work and the philosophy of ministry of TE Wreyford.
They had detected some “progressive” tendencies in the organizing pastor.1 They perceived a “controlling and unyielding nature” in TE Wreyford’s ministry. They also believed TE Wreyford’s philosophy of ministry did not sufficiently emphasize Reformed and Presbyterian distinctives, but instead focused on what would make the “church most appealing to the masses.”2 And finally they were frustrated by how frequently TE Wreyford was absent from the pulpit; they wanted a pastor who would preach the whole counsel of God, but TE Wreyford seemed “quick to give up the pulpit,” they believed.3
Accordingly, when it seemed the church plant was moving closer to particularizing as a congregation of the PCA, Lott and six other men approached both the organizing pastor and the Session expressing their desire for other candidates to be considered when the time came to call a pastor.
The Session’s response to their concerns was not what they anticipated.
In response to the concerns expressed by the Jonesboro 7, members of the Session emphasized the qualifications and credentials possessed by TE Wreyford.
Also present at the meeting was TE Clint Wilcke of the Midsouth Church Planting Network; he suggested that if the men did not agree with Pastor Wreyford’s philosophy of ministry, then they might need to find “another denomination” and “the PCA isn’t it.”4
The men wanted an ordinary Presbyterian and Reformed Church. One of the men put it this way,
…we wanted that teaching, we wanted that meat. We wanted something of… substance. We wanted a reformed Presbyterian church here, PCA church.5
How curious that the “Coordinator/Catalyst” for the PCA’s Midsouth Church Planting Network, TE Clint Wilcke, would suggest that such people find a different denomination if that was the sort of church they wanted.
Despite the objections and concerns of the seven church members, the Session continued to press forward with their belief TE Jeff Wreyford should be offered to the congregation for the position of pastor.
When the men, the Jonesboro 7, did not withdraw their objections to TE Jeff Wreyford being offered as pastor, the Session investigated, indicted, and found them guilty of violating their membership vows as well as sins against the Fifth and Ninth Commandments. The men appealed the Session’s judgment, but the Session – largely comprised of pastors and ruling elders from IPC Memphis – took the added step of leaving the men suspended from the Lord’s Table even while their appeal made its way through the courts.
After the Jonesboro 7 appealed the Session’s judgment, the Session resigned.
Suspended from Communion at Christmas
As noted in other articles, the judicial philosophy apparently embraced by the elders on the Session was peculiar. They had not provided the men with specifics as to their alleged sins. A panel of the SJC would note later the men could not mount a defense at trial, since Session had not told them what their sins were particularly, but instead only that they had generally and vaguely violated the Fifth and Ninth Commandments at some point in “the days leading up to and following August 3, 2020.”6
But nonetheless, despite suffering under a Session which the SJC would note “abused” the process, the men were committed to being PCA. So they submitted to the discipline and waited on the Lord’s deliverance.
The weight of the Session’s actions hit home for Zach Lott on Christmas Eve. He and his family were visiting an ARP congregation in North Carolina where his brother was a pastor. He tells it this way,
I approached [my brother] to ask whether or not I could take communion, knowing that my prospects were not good. Even though my brother is an ARP minister, he has many friends in the PCA, and he keeps a PDF of the BCO on his iPad. He wanted to know specifically what the censure entailed. I explained that, even though the judgment is technically suspended during an appeal, there was a provision in the BCO permitting the Session to withhold the Table from us during the appeal process.
Read More
Related Posts:

It is a most remarkable providence; if one reads the protest against Presbytery’s action to preserve the church plant, the signers represent the elders from Covenant Presbytery’s wealthiest and most influential churches and committees. Yet the speech of a largely unknown, retired former Arkansas church planter was powerfully used by God to change the course of the debate, save the little church plant from dissolution, and preserve a witness for Himself in Jonesboro.

Editorial Note: What follows will be controversial and disturbing as it deals with abuse. 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 Four in a series. You can read Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. I have also written about this mater on PCA Polity.
The men wanted to see a Reformed and Presbyterian Church planted in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Covenant Presbytery had established a mission congregation, Christ Redeemer, in that city under organizing pastor TE Jeff Wreyford.
However, the Jonesboro 7 had not perceived TE Wreyford’s philosophy of ministry to be heavily focused on Reformed distinctives. They had perceived some “progressive” tendencies.1
As such they conveyed their concerns to the elders serving on the temporary Session and stated their belief that other men should be considered as candidates for pastor when the time came for the congregation to elect one.
The Session, however, responded by charging the men with violations of their membership vows and sins against the Fifth and Ninth Commandments. The men, from a church plant of about 45 people, were summoned for a trial on July 12, 2021 at the Independent Presbyterian Church of Memphis, which in 2021 reported its average morning attendance to be 478; more than ten times that of the fledgling church plant.
The Session of Christ Redeemer consisted of – with the exception of TE Wreyford – pastors or ruling elders from IPC Memphis. That same Session would sit in judgment on the men.
Numerous witnesses were called by prosecutor TE Mike Malone, but none of them could give any specific testimony as to what the Jonesboro 7 had done to violate their membership vows and God’s Law. Undeterred by the lack of evidence, the Session found the Jonesboro 7 guilty and censured them with suspension from the Lord’s Table until they would show sufficient evidence of repentance.
But since neither the indictments nor the trial established what the men had specifically done that was sinful, giving “satisfactory evidence of repentance” would be difficult.
An Attempt to Participate
Ordinarily in the PCA, notice of appeal “shall have the effect of suspending the judgment” against an Accused.
Despite the men called by Presbytery to serve as pastor and to shepherd them in Christ’s Name having declined to show them where they had specifically sinned, the men still wanted to participate in the church, to be part of the PCA, and to partake in Christ’s body and blood by faith with the rest of His people at His table. So they appealed to Covenant Presbytery.
But the Session of Elders took the additional step of barring them from approaching the Lord’s Table even while their appeal was ongoing. SJC judges would later note that this would also have the effect of preventing the men from voting in a congregational meeting to elect a pastor, should a vote take place.
To explain their decision to take the extra step of keeping the censure in place even during an appeal, the Session simply asserted, “The judgement shared with you on 21 July 2021 contained sufficient reasons as to why you were being suspended from the Lord’s table.”2
A short time later the Session sent a correspondence to Covenant Presbytery alleging the Jonesboro 7 had “violated BCO 32-19 in the authorship” of their complaint and pleadings by an outside elder.3
The Session wrote,
New evidence has been presented that many of court documents dating back to the earliest correspondence between the appellants and the session bear the name “Dominic Aquila” as author…
We believe this to be potentially against BCO 42-2 and 42-4 which prevents circularizing court documents, as well as 32-19, which prevents the use of “professional counsel.”4
It is a curious interpretation of BCO 42, which places no prohibition on “court documents,” but rather prohibits “circularizing the court,” i.e. attempting to persuade the judges on the court to a certain opinion.
It is further curious the Session interpreted “circularizing” in the way it did, considering that on March 30, 2021 TE Robert Browning, the Covenant Presbytery clerk, had written to the Session about another matter and explained how “circularize the court” is to be understood: “This means there is to be no effort to influence or ‘whip’ the vote before Presbytery.”5
It remains unclear what evidence the Session had to indicate the Jonesboro 7 had retained professional (i.e. paid) counsel.
An Appeal Denied
The seven church members did not believe their elders had showed them where and how specifically they had sinned either through pastoral shepherding or by means of the process of a trial. At such a point, the Jonesboro 7 might understandably shake the dust off their feet and find a gospel centered, Christ exalting, God glorifying faith communion where they could be nurtured and shepherded somewhere else in Jonesboro. That was, after all, what RE Olson seemed to anticipate they needed to do in his testimony.
But these men were committed to the Reformed Faith and were committed to being Presbyterian. As such, they appealed their case to Covenant Presbytery, which had oversight of all the PCA churches in that area. Covenant Presbytery was also the body who had appointed the Elders of the church plant’s temporary Session.
It is likely the men were optimistic about their appeal. After all, the Presbytery had sustained the portion of their complaint months earlier that dealt with largely the same matters.
But if there was any hope of being vindicated at Presbytery, it was short-lived; the Presbytery assigned their case to a commission to review. That commission met on February 4, 2022, and “a motion was made by RE Josh Sanford, seconded by TE Dan Anderson and passed to deny the appeal in the whole. The vote was 7-0-0 in favor.”6
All seven men on the Presbytery’s judicial commission voted to deny their appeal, which would have to be ratified by Presbytery, which it did on May 17, 2022.
The Jonesboro 7 made several arguments pleading for relief from Covenant Presbytery.
They claimed the indictment itself was unconstitutional, since it gave no specifications regarding the sin as required by BCO 32-5; Covenant Presbytery, however, disagreed. The Presbytery reasoned: “the phrase ‘if possible’ gives broad discretion to a court” in what it includes in the indictment. Covenant Presbytery reasoned that the assertion “in the days leading up to and following August 3, 2020…” was sufficiently specific: at some point in the month of August the Jonesboro 7 did something that violated their membership vows and Commandments Five and Nine.7
In their appeal the Jonesboro 7 also claimed that improper, poor, and inadequate evidence was presented at trial to prove their guilt. In other words, the Jonesboro 7 claimed the evidence and testimony did not establish their guilt. But this argument also was rejected by Covenant Presbytery. Covenant Presbytery reasoned “BCO 42-3 does not state ‘poor’ evidence, as the allegation states, as grounds for an Appeal.” The Presbytery also accepted the assertions of the prosecutor, TE Mike Malone, in his closing argument to show “sufficient proof” of the guilt of the Jonesboro 7. This, despite, the fact no testimony was offered as to their specific guilt. Although RE Caldwell did testify as to his feeling the Ninth Commandment was broken.
Read More
Related Posts:

As Session saw it, the Jonesboro 7 were in rebellion against the will of Christ. But had not told them how they were in rebellion against Christ. At the hearing the SJC Judges would later question how the men would be able to show proper evidence of repentance given the lack of specificity; one SJC judge asked whether proper repentance might seem to include having to vote for TE Wreyford. As the SJC would later point out, however, “Session had neither the responsibility nor authority to determine or direct who, if anyone, would stand for election as the pastor of the mission church upon its organization as a particular church.” Session had gravely transcended its authority.

Editorial Note: What follows will be controversial and disturbing as it deals with abuse. 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 three in a series. You can read Part One as well as Part Two. I have also written about this mater on PCA Polity.
Seven men from a small church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas desired to see a distinctively Reformed and Presbyterian church planted in their city. Covenant Presbytery had called a church planter, TE Jeff Wreyford, to organize the work there. But the seven men, the Jonesboro 7, had a different ministerial philosophy than TE Wreyford and they had not perceived the cultivation of a distinctively Reformed and Presbyterian church to be a priority for him.
The seven men went to the Session of elders overseeing the work and stated that when the time came to consider extending a call to a permanent pastor, that they desired to consider other candidates rather than TE Wreyford. You can read more of that in part two.
The Session, of which TE Wreyford was moderator, eventually responded by indicting the Jonesboro 7. The Session wrote them claiming it was “fair to assume,” the Jonesboro 7 had broken the ninth commandment in arriving at their conclusions about TE Wreyford. It remains unclear why the Session believed that was a fair assumption.
These “dirt kickers” from Jonesboro, who attended a fledgling church plant of about 45 people, were summoned for a trial on July 12, 2021, however the wife of one of the Accused was pregnant and her due date was that same day. But despite the request of the Jonesboro 7 for the trial to be moved to the city where they worshiped and where the offenses were alleged to have taken place, the Session of Elders insisted it would be held at IPC Memphis, where most of them were on staff or already ruling elders.
We can only speculate as to how the added stress of allegations from Christ’s under-shepherds and ultimately an indictment would have impacted the young family as they awaited the arrival of their child.
The Session graciously accommodated the soon-to-be father by offering him a choice: choose to be absent from his own trial and represented by counsel or, if the delivery “providentially hindered” him, they would schedule a new hearing date for him. Mr Hurston ultimately chose to be near his wife on that date and was represented by one of the other Accused.1
A Curious Trial
The trial was held at IPC Memphis about 70 miles from the men’s homes and from the church where they were members. It was quite a contrast; IPC Memphis is an historic, wealthy, and influential congregation, which reported an average morning attendance of 952 in 2020 when the Jonesboro 7’s troubles began. Christ Redeemer PCA in Jonesboro, had about 45 people attending the church plant in 2020.
The men had little reason to be optimistic about their impending trial; at the end of May, the Session sent each of the Jonesboro 7 a letter asserting: “Scripture reminds us that if we fail to confess our sins, we cannot expect the Lord’s blessing…you are on a pathway that leads to Sheol and death. Return to your first love, Jesus Christ….”2
Readers may recall that earlier the Session had declined to tell the men how they had sinned. And when the men begged to know what their specific sin(s) were, these under-shepherds of Christ accused the men of being “disingenuous.”
As such, it is curious TE Ed Norton would sign a letter urging the men to “Confess [their] sins,” but continue to refuse to tell the men what their particular sins were (Cf. WCF 15:5). The SJC would call this more than curious; it was “unfair.”3
Nonetheless, the men were committed to the PCA and submitted to a trial, still not knowing what the Session believed they had done in violation of Christ’s Law.
TE Mike Malone, at the time also a pastor at IPC Memphis, served as the prosecutor in the case. It was his job to prove the Jonesboro 7 had broken the Fifth and Ninth Commandments.
At trial, TE Malone alleged the men were in sin to oppose TE Wreyford being offered as candidate for pastor; TE Malone asserted:
The session has continued to voice its support of [TE Wreyford] and believes without hesitation that he should be offered to the congregation as a candidate to serve as its pastor. That’s our job. That’s our responsibility as a provisional session.
The PCA Standing Judicial Commission quotes other arguments from TE Malone’s prosecution in which he alleged the Jonesboro 7 had sinned against the authority the Session “presumed” to have:
“The persistent insistence that [TE Wreyford’s] name be removed as a candidate to be pastor of this church reflects a fundamental unwillingness to fulfill membership vow number five, and is disruptive of the peace of the church.”4
Numerous witnesses were summoned against the accused. But none of them offered any evidence of the guilt of the accused, as the SJC would later point out (see the forthcoming Part Five).
One of the witnesses was TE Clint Wilcke who serves as the “Coordinator/Catalyst for the Mid-South Church Planting Network.” TE Wilcke’s testimony featured some memorable exchanges.
In one exchange, TE Clint Wilcke corrected a defendant for addressing him as “Mr Wilcke,” and instead insisted he be addressed as Reverend Wilcke.
Read More
Related Posts:

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 core of the issue addressed by the Eggert concurrence was a disagreement between a temporary session and some of the members of the congregation they were supposed to be serving and shepherding. All church members have a duty to honor their leaders, “to submit to the government and discipline of the Church, and to study her purity and peace.” But this submission does not mean members of a mission congregation must have their consciences bound by the preferences and recommendations of a temporary session comprised of men who are not members of the congregation.

How a church-plant, or “mission church,” (BCO 5-1) transitions to become a “Particular Church” is outlined in BCO 5-9.
Until a “mission church” becomes a particular church, the church plant is usually under the care of a Presbytery by means of one of two temporary arrangements. In the first arrangement, a commission of elders from the Presbytery is appointed to serve as a temporary session (BCO 15-1). In the second arrangement, the “mission church” is erected as a daughter church of another particularized congregation (BCO 5-3b), and the session of that particularized congregation serves as the overseeing session for the mission church.
A mission church is usually served by a “church planter” who is also a member of the commission serving as session (BCO 5-4a). This church planter is called by Presbytery to do the work of ministry organizing the church plant/mission work with the hopes that it will one day be particularized according to the steps outlined in BCO 5-9.
A crucial step toward becoming a particular congregation is the election of a pastor and other  officers.
The election of a Teaching Elder can sometimes be confusing in the case of a mission work. Ordinarily, a church plant already has had a Teaching Elder ministering as a “church planter” among the saints in that congregation for quite some time. In many instances, the members of the church plant will elect that church planter “to be their pastor” (BCO 5-9f), but not always.
If the members of a congregation “choose not to continue the pastoral relationship” with the church planter, they are free to follow the steps of BCO 20 to elect a different pastor in the ordinary manner.
Before the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) last year, there was a curious case that tested the principles of our Presbyterian polity and challenged the integrity of our Constitution regarding the selection of a pastor by a church plant.
A group of men from a mission work met with the session – including the church planter – overseeing the plant to express their desire that candidates other than the initial church planter be considered for the position of pastor.
It was an undeniable difficult situation. The church planter had labored for years, investing much of his time and energies in the church plant. But now a group of men from several households in the congregation went to the elders and expressed a disagreement with the church planter’s philosophy of ministry and vision for the work.
The Session responded to the men’s concerns by doing three things. First, the Session demanded the men repent of any sin whether of omission or commission against the church planter. Second, the Session demanded the men reaffirm their membership vows. And third, the Session reaffirmed its belief that one of their number should be “offered to the congregation as a candidate to serve as its pastor.”
Read More
Related Posts:

What God did in the midst of great suffering was remarkable. God used this situation to knit together a church family, to teach them to wait upon Him, and to show them His goodness even in the midst of great loss and strain. As I talked with one of the “Jonesboro 7” he testified to how God vindicated His word that those who suffer for the sake of righteousness are indeed blessed. The men and their families learned of the sufficiency and kindness of God even in affliction.

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.
They wanted to see a gospel centered PCA congregation planted in their town, Jonesboro, Arkansas. It was harder than they thought it would be. In this instance, it was especially hard.
Tucked within the thousands of pages of the 2023 General Assembly Handbook is an innocuous sounding decision from the PCA Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), Harrell, et. al. v. Covenant Presbytery.
As I reviewed the SJC Decision, I was frightened, I was angry. I was concerned that what happened to the men whom I have come to call “The Jonesboro 7” could happen to anyone in the PCA.
The SJC even stated this about what the Temporary Session, comprised of Teaching and Ruling Elders from the Independent Presbyterian Church of Memphis, did:
the failure of the Indictments to include the specificity so obviously available is  unjustifiable under BCO 32-5, and we find that the broad Indictments were abused to the prejudice of the Accused who were not adequately informed of the charges against them.1
You read correctly; the PCA General Assembly used the verb abused in reference to the actions of a Session.
The “Jonesboro 7” were subjected to treatment that the General Assembly declared was “unfair” and a violation of “the basic principles of due process as required by our Standards.”
2 Note well: it was not some ephemeral, complicated, or arcane procedure that was violated by the Session, but basic principles.3
In the next weeks, I will be publishing analysis of the case, but I want to begin with several lessons I have learned that I believe others will find beneficial. It is important to consider the lessons of the case first, lest the articles analyzing the actions, testimony, trials, and travails of the case be found too discouraging or disturbing. I am also aware I may not be able to hold all my reader’s attention to the end of the series; a man has to know his limitations.
The lessons, I believe, are what matters most now. I believe the whole of the PCA can learn at least seven things from the tribulations of the “Jonesboro 7.”
1. The Judges on the SJC are Men of Great Integrity
We all have SJC decisions with which we disagree. But even as we disagree at times with some of their decisions or with the way they reviewed (or didn’t!) a lower court’s actions, I believe we should nonetheless admire the commitment and faithfulness of the SJC judges.
The Harrell decision demonstrates the profound integrity of the 22 judges who reviewed this case and their dedication to uphold the PCA Constitution. They are clearly men who take their vows seriously and who are willing to feed Christ’s lambs. The judges on the SJC showed a clear devotion to the cause of Christ and the welfare of His people as they unambiguously repudiated the actions of the Session.
The judges on the SJC did not hesitate to point out a Session had “abused” or done what was “unfair” as shown by the record of the case. When a Session falsely charges seven of Christ’s sheep under its care for daring to disagree whether a man should be “offered to the congregation as a candidate to serve as its pastor,” the SJC will uphold justice and vindicate Christ’s lambs against their accusers.4
One SJC judge, RE Jim Eggert, went so far as to say of this Session: “Session had no lawful authority to insist that the Accused stop resisting the Session’s attempts to ‘recommend’ the minister to the congregation”5
It would have been very easy for the SJC to side with the Elders from wealthy, tall-steepled IPC Memphis and deny the appeal of seven “dirt kickers” from a small city in Arkansas. But instead, and like their King, they took up the cause of the poor and helpless simply because it was right. We should be encouraged the Judges on the SJC love to do justice.
We should be thankful to be in the PCA and we should praise God he has granted judges who serve in this way, judges for whom words and vows mean something, and judges who have pastoral hearts.
2. Process Takes a Long Time
The ordeal for the “Jonesboro 7” began in August of 2020 and did not end until March of 2023 when the SJC decision vindicating them was officially released. During that time they were suspended from the Lord’s Table and deprived of the right to vote or speak in any potential congregational meeting. Even though ordinarily an appeal has the effect of suspending a censure, their Session took the step of leaving the censure in place while the men appealed.
Many times the “Jonesboro 7” could have simply walked away from Christ Redeemer Church and the PCA because of the treatment they endured at the hands of the Session of Elders from Memphis. But these men were committed to the Church and committed to the PCA. So they stayed the course and pursued justice through the process.
It was a painful season.
But because of the pain these men were willing to endure, because these men loved the Church enough to persevere through that pain, perhaps others will learn from their experience and learn from the SJC decision and future Sessions will refrain from the actions similar to what the PCA General Assembly declared to be “unjustifiable.”
Read More
Related Posts:

We need to do better by the Reformed faith. We should not shun words like beautiful, nuance, winsome, and missional, but find ways to use them and use them properly: to extol the virtues of the Westminster Standards as a philosophy of ministry and summary of the Scripture’s teaching.

Language shapes the way people think and heavily influences the judgments people make. George Orwell illustrates this well in 1984. We see this in secular culture; simply by adding the modifier affirming to a product, policy, or institution, it is easier to brand opponents of the policy, product, or institution as some sort of -phobic.
Who could possibly be opposed to something that is affirming and who could survive being labeled some sort of -phobic? Language manipulates the way people perceive issues and even whole groups.
Even in the Church labels influence the way people in the Church relate to one another and how we see ourselves relative to others in the communion. Of course our primary identity flows out of Christ as saints, beloved, and children. Nonetheless in a communion as large as the PCA it is helpful to recognize where one stands along the spectrum.
In 2015, TE Bryan Chapell wrote describing his impression of three main groups in the PCA: “traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals.” Nobody seemed to like Chapell’s designations, and the volume of blogs on all sides objecting to the way Chapell described the different groupings suggests he was probably near the target(s).
While I am not a fan of being labeled a traditionalist, the three words Chapell used to describe the three groups were respectful and accurate enough for people to grasp what he was talking about in 2015 without a whole lot of nuance or elaboration. There are simply differences of ministry perspective, philosophy and priorities across the PCA, and people generally fall into one of about three broad categories. Chapell’s three words effectively distinguished the three groups.
Shaping the Message
Not all labels are as neutral as the ones in TE Chapell’s 2015 article. If an elder is described as winsome, missional, outward facing, and/or gospel centered where would we assume he falls in the Chapell Taxonomy above? If a congregation tends to focus or speak much on “beauty” and “authenticity,” where would you tend to assume it falls on the Chapell Taxonomy?
Recently a church website posted selections of references given for pastoral candidate TE James Kessler, including one from now Stated Clerk Chapell.
Stated Clerk Chapell asserted,
James [Kessler] is courageous and gospel centered. He is very insightful of people. James has multiple gifts so he has an extraordinary ministry. He is a true gem. James has been a leader in the denomination, especially of those pastors who are ‘gospel centered.’
Are there PCA pastors who are not “gospel centered,” is there a portion of the PCA which is not “gospel centered?” What would the taxonomic label for this group be? “Law Centered?” We can only speculate, and that is not the purpose of this article.
My purpose is, however, to highlight how men on the more confessional or “traditionalist” end of the PCA spectrum have done a poor job using language to communicate the beauty, loveliness, and grandeur of simple, ordinary, plain, vanilla, Old School, Reformed, Westminster, Confessional, Ordinary Means of Grace Presbyterianism.
Read More
Related Posts:

While I ordinarily prefer the old tunes over the new, this is not about a matter of style. I am not asserting General Assembly worship should only feature old hymn and psalm tunes. There is a place for new tunes, but new tunes should be introduced in a circumspect manner. TE Sean Morris recently noted regarding worship in Scotland that it was the rural churches there who were demanding new tunes for the psalter. Whether we sing old or new tunes, my concern is that General Assembly worship ought to manifest our Reformed Principles of congregational participation and covenantal dialogue with God.

In my previous article, I reflected on the public worship often offered at PCA General Assembly in contrast to my experience of public worship in local PCA congregations. Worship at the General Assemblies typically seem more like concerts with performers than Presbyterian worship services.Presbyterian worship services ought to be God’s people interacting with their Covenant Lord, as RE Brad Isbell explains about a typical PCA worship liturgy:
The dialogical pattern of God speaking by his Word and his people responding in prayer, praise, and confession is obvious.
While many General Assembly worship services may have a liturgy that reflects a dialogue, that dialogue is often eclipsed by the complexity of the forms of the worship service
Worship & Presbyterians
Worship is the most important thing we do; worship is the reason we were created. Worship is one of the three crucial markers of the true church:
This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. (WCF 25:4)
Occasionally PCA candidates for licensure and ordination will be asked “What are the three marks of the Church,” and they will respond incorrectly with the three marks of the Belgic Confession.
1 In our Westminster Standards, the PCA confesses the three marks of the true church to be:

The Preaching of the Gospel
The Administration of the Sacraments
Public Worship

Since the PCA confesses public worship to be one of the three marks of a true Church, we ought earnestly strive to offer pure worship, biblical worship in all our public assemblies. And General Assembly ought to serve as a model, an exemplar of biblically ordered, confessionally faithful Reformed worship.
Worship & the Congregation
In the worship at our General Assemblies, the congregational singing is typically drowned out or emaciated. As I reflected on that assessment initially I thought perhaps that was the result of poor acoustics in the convention halls. But then I remembered the hymn and psalm singing during the assembly business is typically quite powerful as TE Larry Roff simply accompanies the Assembly on the organ.
2 The problem, it seems, is not one of acoustics; the problem is one of complexity and form.
This was also noticed by TE Kyle Brent who took to Twitter to highlight both where the Memphis Assembly did well and where there were opportunities for improvement in terms of public worship:
I’m more inclined towards traditional worship music and instrumentation but I much preferred the music and instrumentation of the second service of the #pcaga despite it being more “contemporary.” Why? It aided, and didn’t hinder, congregational singing.
Read More
Related Posts:

The conclusion of the 1982 Assembly marked the end of an era of expansion, optimism, and pioneering. Most of those initial leaders would pass on by the time of the half-century mark. Still, the Church had now absorbed an entire denomination with its various agencies, missions, presbyteries, and churches. Most realized that true union was not merely organizational and that large sub-cultures would need to continue in mutual trust for the PCA to grow as wished. The next decade would test those values and unity. 

Below is another excerpt from TE David Hall’s new book, Irony and the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. Hall has graciously provided a few samples of his latest volume to give the readers of Mid the Pines a fresh look at the first history published in conjunction with the PCA’s 50th Anniversary.
David Hall joins a long line of scholars to chart God’s faithfulness to His Church. The excerpt below details the efforts to build on the union between the PCA with the RPCES in joining and receiving. The now larger PCA experienced growth and growing pains as new questions regarding confessional subscription emerged. Read on below or purchase TE Hall’s volume available as kindle or hardcopy.
The 1982 (10th) Assembly: Union to Avoid Duplication
By David W. Hall
By the time that the 10th GA convened, returning to the campus of Calvin College with several other NAPARC partners, it was clear that enough PCA presbyteries had approved joining with the RPCES. Leading up to this Assembly, though, proponents on both sides of the issue were recruiting supporters to the very beginning of RPCES Synod. The new denomination had nearly quadrupled its membership in its first decade and doubled the number of presbyteries. Teaching elders, as had become the norm, had a nearly 2:1 ratio to ruling elders for these important debates.
When the Assembly began, Francis Schaeffer was invited to give a keynote address to this Assembly as part of the celebration of the J&R. Retiring Moderator Paul Settle announced that by more than a 3/4 margin the RPCES had approved the J&R with a 322-90 vote. Similarly, the PCA had obtained the requisite votes to effect union (25 presbyteries in favor, with none opposing); thus, the RPCES commissioners were soon included as registered commissioners of the 10th GA.  Notwithstanding, by an 18-7[1] vote of the PCA presbyteries, the invitation to the OPC failed by one presbytery vote to receive the needed supermajority support and was discontinued for a time.[2]
Before Dr. Schaeffer spoke to the now-united churches, a few border disputes among presbyteries needed adjustment, and this was assigned to a sub-committee to reconcile as soon as possible. The other largely formal matters below (Min10GA, 320) were approved as this committee concluded its work and was dissolved.
The Committee requested the Committee on Administration also to appoint legal counsel to work with the general counsel of the RPCES to assure that wills, trusts, corporations, and property matters are properly cared for in the transition process.
Steps were taken to assure that trustees in the RPCES with fiduciary responsibilities will not be placed in jeopardy when their responsibilities are transferred to corresponding members in the PCA.
The Ad Interim Committee wishes to thank the Coordinators, staff members, committee chairmen and others in the PCA who cooperated so willingly and fully with the efforts to facilitate the transition procedures of the Joining and Receiving. Appreciation is also expressed to our brethren in the OPC and RPCES who have so graciously worked with us as we have explored the possibility of ‘effecting one church.’
Though we regret that the OPC will not at this time be participating in the Joining and Receiving process, we pray that our sovereign God will allow us to continue already successful joint efforts in ministry and to expand our common witnessunto a day when we may indeed realize the hope of organizational unity to His glory.
Read More
Related Posts: