The “Jonesboro 7” Indicted for “Imagined” Sin
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.
-
Christ Over All
Whether it is in the first century or the present day, the church quickly departs from Christ and his Word and seeks to establish truth apart from divine revelation. But as Paul warns the Colossians, he warns us: divine revelation, centered in Christ, is the foundation of all knowledge. We do not have truth apart from God and his Word. Ultimately, apart from God creating the world and revealing himself in nature and Scripture, we would have no warrant for what we know. True objective knowledge requires a foundation in the triune God who is there and who speaks, which entails that we must evaluate everything we think and believe in light of Christ and Scripture.
In every era, the church needs sound biblical teaching and faithful theological instruction. Theology, rightly understood, is the lifeblood of the church and necessary for her life and health. Central to theology is the knowledge of our triune God as our Creator, Redeemer, and covenant Lord, and the application of God’s Word to our lives. For us, who are created and redeemed by God, there is no higher calling and greater privilege than to know the only true God in and through our Lord Jesus Christ (John 17:3).
Today, however, the evangelical church is largely in danger of theological drift. No doubt, since its beginning, the church has always faced the perennial threat of theological drift. This is why one of the tasks of faithful biblical teaching is to keep the church from being “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14). Theology’s task is to expound, apply, and defend the truth of Scripture so that the church continues to love and proclaim the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) and the unsearchable riches of Christ (Col. 1:28-29). The Christian life and Christian ministry are about knowing God in truth, believing and obeying God’s Word, and being vigilant for the truth of the gospel by “destroy[ing] arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and tak[ing] every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
Yet today, the need for sound biblical and theological instruction is great. On every side, evangelicalism is experiencing a collective identity crisis. Why? There are many reasons, but certainly one of them is due to the waning conviction that theology is vital for the spiritual health of the church, and that biblical truth not only matters but is really true and thus authoritative for our lives. As David Wells has repeatedly warned the evangelical church for nearly three decades, we have traded biblical and theological faithfulness for pragmatic success.[1] The result? Disciplined biblical and theological thinking has taken a backseat to other cultural concerns, so much so that current evangelicalism in the West is a shell of what it used to be.
In fact, if we listen to the polls (e.g., Ligonier’s The State of Theology), we discover that in many of our churches basic biblical and theological knowledge is at an all-time low. Not surprisingly, we have also succumbed to many of the pressures of our culture by modifying our theological convictions to conform to the current “spirit of the age.” This explains why some evangelicals are now flirting with the latest cultural trends: critical race theories; redefinitions of male and female roles in the marriage, the church, and society; embrace of various LGBTQ concerns; an uncritical acceptance of secular-postmodern views of “social justice” in contrast to a biblical view of justice and its outworking in our lives and the larger society; and so on.
Similar to the churches in Revelation 2–3, we, sadly, are in danger of accommodating to the mindset of our day. For example, just as the church at Laodicea began to resemble her city: self-satisfied, content with the status quo, little dependence on God, so also some evangelicals are in danger of replicating the Laodiceans’ impoverished spiritual state (Rev. 3:14–22). Or, similar to the church at Ephesus (Rev. 3:1–7), for some of us who think we are standing faithfully for truth, unbeknownst to us, we have drifted from the Lord because we have lost our first love, namely our love for Christ. We have rightly taught and emphasized sound doctrine but we have done so in such a way that we have drifted away from the Lordship of Christ in our lives, and this observation now leads me to discuss the reason for the name of this website.
What’s in a Name?
Why the name “Christ over All?” Obviously, many reasons could be given, but the main reason is due to our conviction that what the church desperately needs today is to a rock solid commitment to the authority of Scripture in all that it teaches with specific focus on Christ’s lordship over all. In our view, the great need for the evangelical church is unashamedly to retain and in many ways return to what is most central: the glory of the triune God in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As we examine Scripture, we discover that its main message is about how God in his infinite wisdom, power, and grace has chosen to bring all of his purposes and plans to fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Repeatedly, Scripture reminds us that in Christ alone, all of God’s sovereign purposes find their fulfillment (Heb. 1:1–3) and that God’s eternal plan is to bring “all things,” “things in heaven and things on earth,” under Christ’s headship (Eph. 1:9–10), which has already begun in his first coming and which will be consummated in his return.
It is important to remember that to emphasize Christ’s centrality is not to diminish the persons and work of the Father and the Spirit. Instead, Scripture teaches that all the Father does centers in his Son and that the Spirit works to bear witness and bring glory to the Son. Thus, to be truly trinitarian is to be properly Christ-centered. As our Lord reminds us, “whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him” (John 5:23).
This glorious truth, however, is not merely to be confessed; it is to be lived out in every area of our lives. The church first exists to know and proclaim the glory of the triune God in the face of Christ, and a move away from this center will lead the church away from life and health. As such, we constantly need to be reminded about who is central, who is worthy, who is to be obeyed, and who is our only hope and salvation. The purpose of this website is to do this: to call the church back to know, proclaim, and live out Christ’s Lordship over every aspect of our lives.
Scripture teaches the truth about “Christ over All” in many places, but probably the most profound and succinct text is Colossians 1:15–20. Let me first explain how this text teaches the truth of Christ’s Lordship, before I make some application points from Colossians 2:6–10. By doing so, we can explain further what we are seeking to achieve by this website.
The Truth of Christ Over All (Col. 1:15–20)
This is one of the most profound Christological texts in the New Testament that unpacks Christ’s lordship. In the Patristic era, this text was used by the Arians to argue that Christ was the “firstborn,” i.e., the first created being and thus not God the Son. This interpretation continues today among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and sadly, numerous evangelicals are also confused on this point.[2] Against the Arians, however, the text unambiguously teaches the full deity of the Son, and thus Christ’s Lordship.
The text is divided into two main stanzas (vv. 15–17 and 18b–20) with a transitional stanza between the two (vv. 17–18a). In the first main and transitional stanzas, Jesus is presented as Lord because he is the eternal Son, the true image of God, the agent of creation, and the sustainer of the universe. In the second main stanza, Jesus is presented as the incarnate Son, who by his incarnation and cross-work is our only Redeemer. Jesus, then, is supreme over all because he is our Creator and Redeemer. Let’s look further at the text.In the first of three steps, the Son’s full deity is taught in vv. 15-16 in three affirmations. (1) The Son is described as “the image of the invisible God,” which means that he possesses the very nature of God. The same thought is found in Hebrews 1:3a, where Christ is described as “the exact representation (charaktēr) of his being.” Although different expressions, they both teach that Christ is God the Son. The Son, from eternity, has perfectly reflected the Father, and now in his incarnation reveals the invisible God just as perfectly.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Living Selflessly with Your Wife
A godly husband enjoys the freedom and intimacy of the marriage relationship and relishes his wife as his dearest companion and closest friend. Though any marriage is at times difficult and though any relationship will at times demand effort and require work, he is committed to enjoying his wife and delighting in the unique joys and wonders of the marriage relationship.
Before I set fingers to keyboard, I asked my wife if I should write this article—one requested by Ligonier’s Tabletalk magazine. Before I so much as typed a single word, I asked her if I was at all qualified. She pondered this for a few moments and said, “Yes, I think you are.” I was grateful for her affirmation, yet we both had to acknowledge that many parts of the Christian life are easier to say than to do, easier to describe than to live out. And this one is no exception. It’s easy enough to plan and pledge and pray to live selflessly, but it’s difficult to actually do it moment by moment and day by day. That’s true even of living selflessly with the person in this world I love the most.
I have often pondered one of the strange paradoxes of the married life—that the person I love the most is the person I will sin against the most. Because of our proximity, because of our intimacy, because we have pledged to live our lives together “till death do us part,” I will have a lifetime of opportunities to love my wife but also to hurt her, to bless my wife but also to sin against her. Every day I will have the opportunity to live with her selflessly but also to battle the temptation to live with her selfishly.
God’s Word makes it clear that it is the responsibility of every husband to live with his wife in an understanding way—a way that shows her special honor (1 Peter 3:7). God makes it clear that while a husband is called to lead his wife, he is to lead in a way that is marked by love, not control, and that is shown in sacrifice, not dominance (Eph. 5:25–31). If a wife’s calling is to submit to her husband’s leadership and to show him honor, the husband’s calling is to lead in a way that makes it easy for her to follow and to love in a way that makes him worthy of her honor. It is to think more of her than of himself, to consider her good ahead of his own, to love her even at his own expense.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Superiors, Inferiors, and Equals
Regardless of which category we fall into the first issue at hand is what do we do with the place the Lord has granted to us in His purpose. If we are a Superior are we encouraging biblical fidelity among those in our purview? If not we are sinning against them. John Flavel in his commentary explicitly warns ministers of the gospel that they are to be feeding their sheep with the wholesome food of Christ, to be “full of bowels of tender affection to them”, and to walk with them in holiness and truth. Those principles can be expanded both to parents and to even the civil magistrate.
We’re going to go directly to the Q/A’s this week as we continue to look at the first statute of the second table of the law. While it may seem arbitrary to divide the first four from the last six it is a Biblical idea. (Deut. 4:13). To think more clearly about what this is meant to teach us the Puritan Thomas Watson shows us how to approach these rules with a spiritual mindset:
The first table respects God and is the top of the ladder that reaches to heaven; the second respects superiors and inferiors, and is the foot of the ladder that rests on the earth. By the first table, we walk religiously towards God; by the second, we walk religiously towards man. He cannot be good in the first table that is bad in the second.
We are not to act as if one portion of the law is more important than another. Each part is meant to build upon the one before and assist the following of all of the commandments. We are called by Christ to love all of His commandments.
As with the First, Second, and Third commandments the Fifth is divided into four parts. This morning we are on the “back half” describing what is not allowed and what may need some more explanation. Here are the catechism questions:
Q. 65. What is forbidden in the fifth commandment?
A. The fifth commandment forbids the neglecting of, or doing anything against, the honors and duty which belongs to every one in their several places and relations.
Q. 66. What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment?
A. The reason annexed to the fifth commandment, is a promise of long life and prosperity (as far as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good) to all such as keep this commandment.
James Fisher was one of our forefathers in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. A blessing that he has bequeathed to us is a very helpful commentary on the Shorter Catechism. In his exposition of the fifth commandment there is a series of Q/A’s that I want to bring forward to help us better understand what we are talking about when it comes to Superiors, Inferiors, and Equals. As noted last week we live in an egalitarian age. People are wired by society to scoff at any idea of a stratified society, for some good reasons to be sure. The way class-consciousness has been used in the past by secular forces has led to chattel slavery, hard castes, and other sinful activities.
Read More
Related Posts:
