Covenant Presbytery took up the Jonesboro matter again; this time with the hope of reconciliation between members of the Jonesboro congregation and the original Session. This is very good news. It would be a wonderful testimony if the Presbytery not only reconciled with the Jonesboro 7, but also with those who left the visible church following the abuse by the original temporary Session largely from IPC Memphis. While the actions of that temporary Session have been nullified by the PCA General Assembly, there are nonetheless lingering personal, relational, and spiritual consequences due to the way judicial process was “abused” by the temporary Session.

Seven heads of households from a PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas met with their temporary Session. They explained to their elders at that meeting their desire to consider candidates for pastor other than the current church planter (and a member of the temporary Session). The men were shocked by the temporary Session’s response. The temporary Session’s actions would likewise shock and scandalize many from across the PCA. You can read about the travails and vindication of the Jonesboro 7 here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five.
The Principle of Non-Intrusion
In the Fall of 1834, wealthy and powerful Lord Kinnoul selected Mr Robert Young to serve as pastor of a Presbyterian congregation in Auchterarder, Scotland of which Lord Kinnoul was the patron. The congregation had the opportunity of sitting under Young’s ministry for a period of time. When the moment came for the congregation to determine whether to approve the man to be their pastor, the congregation decidedly rejected him:
only two individuals, Michael Tod and Peter Clark, could be found to express approbation by signing the call. Five-sixths of the congregation, on the other hand, came forward solemnly to protest against his settlement [installation].1
The congregation requested their patron, Lord Kinnoul, select another man to serve as minister. But Lord Kinnoul refused and took the matter to the civil courts.
On what was very likely a cold day, March 8, 1838 a Scottish court issued a judgment against that Auchterarder congregation, which stated in effect, “in the settlement of pastors, the Church [presbytery] must have no regard to the feelings of the congregation.”
The little congregation appealed, but on May 2, 1839 the appeals court ruled the opinion of the congregation was “considered of no value in any way…” regarding the selection of a pastor.2
There were numerous similar cases in the Scottish Kirk at this time; the civil courts determined regarding the selection of ministers: “No regard was to be paid to any opinions or feelings of the parishioners.”3
But the people of God continued to protest to the Scottish presbyteries, insisting they should have the right of approving a minister. When the church courts refused to heed their pleas, the people vacated the church buildings and formed new congregations; they would not accept a minister forced upon them by the civil government or the presbytery. The intrusion of the government and church courts into the selection of a congregation’s minister is deeply offensive to the principles of biblical church polity.
Thomas Brown summarizes:
During the whole of the Church’s history it had been held that the call of the people was essential before a minister could be settled. The congregation must invite before the Presbytery could ordain. Here were cases, however, one after another, in which the parishioners were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the presentee. Was the call, then, to be treated as a mockery?…Was it to be tolerated that, the members of Christian congregations must submit to have obnoxious presentees forced on them?4
This led to what is called “The Great Disruption” of 1843 in which several hundred ministers departed from the Kirk of Scotland, being committed to the principle that neither the civil government (e.g., an aristocratic patron) nor the church courts may “intrude” upon a congregation’s right to select her own minister. They formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
This “non-intrusion principle” is now universally accepted as vital to presbyterianism.
The ‘Non-Intrusion Principle’ & the PCA?
The principle underlying the Great Disruption of 1843 is at the core of the PCA’s Book of Church Order (see the article I wrote at PCAPolity.com for more on this). A congregation’s right to select her own minister is nearly absolute. No church court may force a minister upon a congregation without its consent, not even a temporary Session.5
This makes what happened in Jonesboro, Arkansas all the more remarkable and scandalous.
Following that meeting with seven heads of households, the temporary Session (largely comprised of elders from wealthy and influential IPC Memphis) investigated, indicted, and summoned the seven men for trial because they objected to the Session’s preferred course of action: to have one of the Session’s own number considered first for the position of pastor.
During the trial, however, no evidence was presented of the men’s guilt. Nonetheless, IPC Memphis Ruling Elder David Caldwell did testify at trial that he had a feeling the Ninth Commandment was violated by the Jonesboro 7.6 Ordinarily, feelings are not admitted into evidence in the courts of the PCA. But in this case, the PCA General Assembly’s Judicial Commission (SJC) noted the “basic principles of due process” required by the PCA Constitution were violated by that temporary Session.7
RE David Caldwell was later elected to be the Moderator of Covenant Presbytery in 2024. As moderator, his role is to ensure meetings and debate are conducted in accordance with the PCA Constitution.
The temporary Session found the men guilty, censured them, and barred them from the Lord’s Table as well as participation in congregational meetings, which also meant they could not vote on the call of a pastor (as some SJC judges noted during their review of the Session’s actions).
When the men appealed their decision to Covenant Presbytery, the temporary Session resigned and recommended the MNA Committee of Covenant Presbytery close the little church plant in Jonesboro, calling its culture toxic.
What was it that made the congregation toxic? Was it that seven households objected to the man whom the temporary Session – a group of men largely from IPC Memphis who did not live in Jonesboro – wanted to offer to the congregation?8
It is unclear what made the church plant’s culture toxic. But you can imagine the impact that label had on the members of Christ Redeemer PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Faithful elders across the denomination are working to further perfect and refine our polity in hopes that the abuse of process endured by the Jonesboro 7 and others is not repeated.
The Cost to the Church
The Jonesboro 7 and their families represented upward of 40% of the congregation. The temporary Session understandably did not inform the rest of the congregation of the investigation, indictment, and trial of the Jonesboro 7, yet nonetheless a cloud settled over the congregation for some time as a result.
When the judgment of the temporary Session was finally announced and notice of appeal was given, the little congregation was in utter disarray. You can get a sense of the pain and hurt felt by the congregation at this meeting where some members of the temporary Session explain their decision to resign and recommend the church plant be terminated by Covenant Presbytery.
Indeed, the Jonesboro 7 persevered through the abuse of process by the temporary Session and the erroneous decisions of Covenant Presbytery and were ultimately vindicated by the PCA General Assembly. But not all the members of the church plant persevered through the congregation’s difficulties, which the temporary Session brought upon them.
While the biblical polity of the PCA prevailed and vindicated the Jonesboro 7 against the usurpations by a temporary Session of elders largely from IPC Memphis, there have still been costs.
A number of the church plant’s members and regular attenders were so shocked by the abuse of process and the bad report that was given to Covenant Presbytery by the former members of the Session that they have left the visible church entirely.
Read More
Related Posts:

Some writings took longer for the churches to recognize and circulate than others. The anonymous book of Hebrews is an example. James and Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John were others. Questions were also raised about the book of Revelation. In time, however, the churches circulated and used these documents, and they were recognized as authoritative works. Other books such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas were used occasionally but never widely recognized as authoritative.

Recognizing the canonicity of the Old Testament writings is relatively easy. We can accept the evaluations made by Israel about which writings are authoritative. These evaluations have been endorsed by Jesus and the apostles. Israel has handed the Church an intact canon for the Old Testament.
Similarly, we can follow the example of Jesus and the apostles in their usage of the apocryphal books. They were surely aware of these documents, which (among other things) narrate important aspects of Israel’s history. Nevertheless, the Jews of Jesus’ day did not accept these writings as Scripture. Jesus never cited or used them at all. Aside from a possible allusion or two, the apostles never referenced them and certainly did not endorse them as authoritative. No Christian body formally recognized any apocryphal books as canonical before the sixteenth century.
Recognizing the canonicity of the New Testament books requires a different approach. While there is some mutual recognition among the apostles of the authority of each other’s writings (e.g., 2 Pet 3:15–16), the apostolic church never provided an authoritative list of authoritative writings. The apostles themselves were aware of the problem of forged documents written under their names (2 Thess 2:2). Also, other non-apostolic books were being circulated among the churches (e.g., the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). By the second century, heretics such as the Gnostics had begun to produce documents for which they claimed authority (the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.). The proliferation of writings forced Christian leaders and thinkers to ask which documents were genuinely inspired. Furthermore, persecution underlined the importance of knowing which books were worth giving one’s life for and which were not.
Over time, Christians came to use at least four tests to determine whether a writing qualified as canonical. The first of these was the test of apostolicity. To be recognized as inspired, a document had to have been written by an apostle or by someone with a close connection to the apostolic community. Most of the books that became the New Testament were written directly by apostles. The few exceptions (Mark, Luke, James, Jude) were written by people close to the apostles. Mark is supposed to have used Peter as a direct source. Luke was a close associate of Paul, and he evidently had access to Mary’s testimony. James and Jude were both half-brothers of Jesus, and both were seen as prominent within the early Christian church.
The test of apostolicity was simplified by the fact that the apostles had written to several churches that still possessed their writings. During the early third century, Tertullian claimed that the authentic writings of the apostles could be found in places like Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and Rome (Prescription Against Heretics 36).
Read More
Related Posts:

Good works call for our devotion. After all, they’re what we were “created in Christ Jesus for” (Eph. 2:10). We must actively “learn” to do them. The ability to do good works is infused into us when we’re born again—so the potential is there. But the actual doing of them is a learned skill (like riding a bike or reading), and part of Great Commission discipleship is teaching people to do them (Matt. 28:20).

The Bible has a lot of negative things to say about “works,” especially “works of the law.” Paul stresses repeatedly that we’re justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law. Salvation is “not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8, NKJV).
But “good works” are another matter. By my ESV search, the phrase “good works” (plural) is used 13 times in the New Testament, with eight occurrences in the Pastoral Epistles. Without exception, the phrase is used in a positive, nonironic way to describe exemplary Christian activity.
Few chapters are as relentless in advocating good works as Titus 3. If someone tells you Paul and James disagree about the need for good works, point him to this chapter. Here we can identify three facets of good works: their foundation, their importance, and their definition.
Foundation of Good Works
No less a do-gooder than William Wilberforce once defined Christianity as “a scheme . . . for making the fruits of holiness the effects, not the cause, of our being justified and reconciled.” Good works are the fruit, not the root. Or to tweak the analogy, good works are what goes on in the house, but they’re not the foundation of the house. 
This is exactly what Paul says in Titus 3:8: “The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.”
Notice that the people who are told to devote themselves to good works are “those who have believed in God.” Saving faith and good works aren’t like our two separate hands—rather, faith in God is the foundation for good works.
Paul isn’t referring to a general faith in God’s existence but rather a specific faith in God’s loving kindness for us in the gospel. Notice how he begins verse 8. Good works are the result of Titus “[insisting] on these things.” We insist on these things so that believers will do good works. But what are “these things”? What is this “trustworthy saying”? The answer is found in the immediately preceding verses:
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (vv. 4–7)
The only message that can be trusted to produce good works is the message that tells us our works can’t save us. It seems counterintuitive, but it’s the gospel. If we want a house filled with good works, we must first lay a solid foundation for them.
Importance of Good Works
Sometimes gospel-centered people can be skittish about good works. We think, Just preach the gospel, and good works will happen on their own without any sustained focus on them. But this isn’t what we see in Titus 3. Instead, Paul says things like “let our people learn to devote themselves to good works” (v. 14) and “[let believers] be careful to devote themselves to good works” (v. 8). There’s an urgency here that’s often missing in our preaching.
Good works call for our devotion. After all, they’re what we were “created in Christ Jesus for” (Eph. 2:10). We must actively “learn” to do them. The ability to do good works is infused into us when we’re born again—so the potential is there.
Read More
Related Posts: