PCA's Judicial Commission Vindicates the "Jonesboro 7," cites abuse by Session
The General Assembly's Judicial Commission not only rejected the unconstitutional indictment of the Temporary Session from IPC, but also vindicated the men of all charges (Part Five).
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
The Respondents for Covenant Presbytery made curious arguments at the hearing. According to observers of the trial, Covenant Presbytery’s arguments centered around three main points:
The Jonesboro 7 had failed to prove they were not guilty of what they had been accused of doing;
The PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission needs to defer to the judgment of Presbytery, which herself deferred to the judgment of the Session; this was a “double deference” situation;
Since the process had thus far been followed, it was beyond the purview of the SJC panel to consider issues of evidence. Those issues had been settled by the Session and the Presbytery, and SJC’s task was simply to review Covenant Presbytery’s work.
Some of those present at the hearing recalled a memorable exchange that seemed to exemplify the way in which the SJC Panel of judges received the arguments made by the representatives of Covenant Presbytery.
One judge noted he was “mystified” and repeatedly asked Covenant Presbytery’s Respondents to show him in the Record of the Case where, Paul Harrell (eponymous of the case) had broken the Fifth Commandment or bore false witness against anyone.
One of the Presbytery’s Respondents then tried to correct the judge by asserting it was not the responsibility of the SJC Panel to be concerned with matters of evidence; such matters were disposed of finally at the Presbytery and not subject to consideration by the SJC.
But the SJC judge was not willing to accept the logic of Covenant Presbytery’s Respondent on this point. So he demanded to be shown in the Record of the Case an example of Paul Harrell bearing false witness.
The Respondent pled for time to search his notes. While he searched his notes another of Covenant Presbytery’s Respondents tried to convince the SJC Panel that they should not concern themselves with matters of evidence.
Unable to point to anywhere in the Record of the Case that provided actual, specific evidence of Paul Harrell’s guilt (or that of any of the Jonesboro 7) a representative of Covenant Presbytery infamously asserted that Paul Harrell had failed to offer any evidence he had not done what he was accused of doing.
Those who were present recalled hearing audible gasps from members of the SJC Panel after that assertion by an elder from Covenant Presbytery. The statement was indelibly etched into the memories of all those who observed the hearing: Paul Harrell had failed to offer evidence of not doing what he was accused of doing; Paul Harrell needed to prove a negative, Covenant Presbytery’s Representative seemed to be saying. There is a curious theory of jurisprudence in Covenant Presbytery.
The SJC judge continued to question the Presbytery’s Representative, which observers remember seeming more like a gentle cross examination, as the judge demanded to know whether the accused had the burden of proof to show he did not do something.
Consider the frightening implications of Covenant Presbytery’s reasoning. Actual innocence ought to be irrelevant to a secondary appeals court. The members of congregations in Covenant Presbytery might reasonably tremble with fear that what happened to the Jonesboro 7 could easily happen to them if this judicial philosophy is allowed to continue to hold sway within Covenant Presbytery’s leadership.
New Allegations Against the Jonesboro 7 at the SJC
Not satisfied with a Record of the Case that exceeded 440 pages and the charges, contained in the indictments, Covenant Presbytery’s representatives made additional allegations against the Jonesboro 7 at the hearing before the SJC attempting to justify the guilty verdicts rendered upon the men. This tactic was employed throughout the process by members of Covenant Presbytery; the SJC noted even at the original trial before the Temporary Session, Prosecutor TE Mike Malone’s closing arguments attempted to establish the guilt of the Jonesboro 7 by referring to matters that had occurred after the indictments were drawn, which is wholly inappropriate. The SJC reminds us the PCA Constitution establishes,
A court may not consider matters outside an indictment at a trial on that indictment. Conduct and events that occurred after May 5, 2021, the date of the Indictments here, were outside of the scope of the proceedings fairly at issue. Any finding of guilt or censure related to or arising out of such alleged conduct or events is void for lack of the due process our Constitution requires.6
At the hearing before the SJC Panel still more allegations were made against the Jonesboro 7 by Covenant Presbytery’s representatives. Some of these new allegations were quite memorable and shared with me by observers of the hearing who kept a careful record of its proceedings.
Creating a “Shadow Session”
One of the new allegations agains the Jonesboro 7 was that they were running a “shadow session.” This is a curious allegation to make, since it does not appear in the Record of the Case. It is also a curious tactic, since Presbytery’s position was the appeal before the SJC was not a de novo appeal.
The Presbytery’s representatives also took a curious interpretation of the Record to make this point. In their Brief to the SJC, Presbytery’s respondents alleged the “Seven took it upon themselves to present Church Planter, TE Wreyford with a job performance evaluation.” They alleged the men had acted improperly by going directly to TE Wreyford with their concerns rather than taking them to the Temporary Session. But earlier in the case, the Temporary Session had faulted the men for not taking their concerns to TE Wreyford and failing to follow Matthew 18.
It seems no matter what the Jonesboro 7 did, there was no path for them to express their concerns without being dealt with as lawbreakers by members of Covenant Presbytery. If they went directly to TE Wreyford (which they did) they were a “shadow session;” if they went to the Temporary Session (which they also did), they were gossips and slanderers who disregarded Matthew 18.
The SJC judges were not impressed with this reasoning. They wondered if the men had individually expressed reservation about TE Wreyford’s ministry, would that have been sinful? And if it was not sinful for them to individually express concerns, why would the men doing so together be considered sinful or a shadow session?
“Gamification” of the Church Courts
One of Covenant Presbytery’s representatives remarked the Jonesboro 7 did not submit to the Session, but instead simply played games with the process of the Church Courts and had gotten themselves into a mess. Covenant Presbytery’s representatives tried to demonstrate a focus by the Jonesboro 7 on playing games of process rather than submitting to the Session and being interested in the spiritual purposes of discipline.
The “games” to which Covenant Presbytery’s representative referred were the Jonesboro 7 following the processes outlined in the PCA Constitution. One Covenant Presbytery representative even presumed to assert before the SJC Panel that the men had not engaged in prayer or reflection prior to giving notice of appeal. An allegation that has stuck with the Jonesboro 7 since that day.
Appealing Too Quickly
The Jonesboro 7 appealed Presbytery’s verdict within one hour of it being made, a fact Covenant Presbytery would try to use as evidence of the disregard of the authority of the Church Courts. This might - at first - be a compelling argument, but readers should remember Covenant Presbytery’s Proposed Decision was available to the Jonesboro 7 before Covenant Presbytery finally ratified it (BCO 15-3).
Far from demonstrating contempt, their speedy appeal demonstrated a continued willingness to submit to the Presbyterian Church in America no matter how poorly the Courts of the Church were caring for them. These men were committed to being PCA members and part of a PCA church. They were simply searching for a PCA Church Court in which the PCA Constitution would be upheld.
Those subject to the jurisdiction of Covenant Presbytery would do well to ask themselves: what is the acceptable window of time within to file an appeal. The PCA Constitution states thirty days; but in Covenant Presbytery, if that appeal is filed too quickly, an elder representing the Presbytery before the SJC might try to use that as evidence of guilt.
Use of an Outside Representative
Even before the SJC hearing, members of Presbytery were trying to turn the fact that the Jonesboro 7 had received help from TE Dominic Aquila into an issue. The Session suggested the men may have violated the PCA Constitution by sharing correspondence they received from the Session with him in order for TE Aquila to help draft their pleadings.
The Session alerted Presbytery to this “new evidence” that TE Aquila had drafted pleadings for the Jonesboro 7. But it is unclear exactly of what this was evidence. Nowhere does the PCA Constitution prohibit church members from seeking assistance from other elders when they are faced with judicial process. Why would the Session object to the men obtaining assistance from a veteran pastor and church planter who has great experience in the PCA Courts? Indeed TE Aquila had pointed out many of the very issues in the Session’s actions that SJC would determine were some combination of unconstitutional, unfair, and/or unjustifiable.
Likewise in their brief (an excerpt is pictured above), the Presbytery’s Respondents alleged having a “Representative” assist the Jonesboro 7 was some how evidence of wrongdoing. But even if it was evidence of wrongdoing (which it is not), that is not what the Jonesboro 7 were charged with or the subject of the hearing before the SJC. That would be a matter for another case.
Why is it the Temporary Session and Covenant Presbytery’s representatives were so fixated on seven ordinary church members receiving help and counsel regarding their rights as members of the PCA from a respected former General Assembly Moderator and SJC judge?
We can only speculate what might have happened to the Jonesboro 7 if TE Dominic Aquila had not volunteered his time to defend these men against the baseless and slanderous allegations made against them by their Session.
Failing to Mount a Defense
The Record of the Case shows the seven men made neither opening nor closing statements. They simply cross examined the witnesses against them each of whom acknowledged an inability to bear witness to a time the seven men had violated the Fifth and/or Ninth Commandments. Covenant Presbytery’s Respondents alleged this, somehow, was evidence of the guilt of the Jonesboro 7.
But Covenant Presbytery’s representatives were not satisfied with what the Jonesboro 7 did at trial. They insisted each man should have made a positive declaration that he did not do what he was accused of doing. The Representatives for Covenant Presbytery noted not a single one of the seven men claimed to not be part of what the group (allegedly) did. They asserted that the Jonesboro 7 simply attacked the credibility of the witnesses at trial rather than try to “disprove” the allegations against them at trial.
Observers recalled this line of reasoning seemed too much for one SJC judge and another former moderator of the General Assembly; observers recall him clearly noting to Presbytery’s representatives that the men had pled not guilty and then enquired of the Respondents what more the Appellants needed to say than that.
The judge then proceeded to take on the new allegations made by Covenant Presbytery’s representatives against the Jonesboro 7 by enquiring how the men could mount a defense at trial, since they did not know what their Session was accusing them of having done.
Unequivocal Vindication
A fair hearing and justice were all that the Jonesboro 7 were seeking and that is exactly what they would receive at the hands of the PCA General Assembly through the elders on the Standing Judicial Commission.
According to some who observed the hearing, the SJC judges showed themselves not merely concerned for process, legal theories, and jurisprudence, but also the cause of Christ and the King’s justice. They were men who were zealous to shepherd Christ’s lambs, to see that they were fed and that the good name and reputation of Christ’s sheep were protected from slander.
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
(John 21:15–16)
The SJC judges seemed to have rejected all of Covenant Presbytery’s arguments. Most significantly they rejected Covenant Presbytery’s assertion that it was not within the purview of the General Assembly to look at the actual evidence.
In its decision, the SJC might have only ruled on the matter of the indictments; they did note the indictments were not in conformity to the PCA Constitution, and the SJC could have stopped there and remanded the case to Session for a new trial. But the godly judges on the SJC did not stop there.
The SJC also looked at the evidence in the case and not only vacated the guilty verdicts of the Session, but exonerated the men of the allegations against them declaring, “There Were No Transgressions of the Fifth Commandment” and “There Were No Transgressions of the Ninth Commandment.”7
In its Proposed Decision, the SJC Panel left little ambiguity (see the Decision for more details).
Covenant Presbytery Digs In Its Heels
After the Proposed Decision was sent to the parties, Covenant Presbytery’s representatives submitted a Supplemental Brief taking issue with various portions of the Proposed Decision. Covenant Presbytery continued to assert an indictment does not need to give specifics, but that the “qualifiers of should and if possible” mean the indictment need not necessarily actually state the particulars of the offense, since the word “must” does not appear in BCO 32-5.
Covenant Presbytery’s Supplemental Brief also tried to point to areas in the Record of the Case at which there was evidence of guilt proven at trial. They cited the testimony of TE Barr Overcast who alleged the Jonesboro 7 were “dismissive” of the Session, since the Session “doesn’t really have any say;” the latter is factually true, however. A Temporary Session has no say over whom the members of a congregation call as their pastor. Likewise, the Supplemental Brief cited RE David Caldwell’s testimony as proving guilt.
The General Assembly’s Judicial Commission was, however, unmoved by Covenant Presbytery’s Supplemental Brief and made no substantive changes in its Final Decision from the Proposed Decision. SJC judge RE Jim Eggert did, however, submit a concurrence that addressed some of the erroneous reasoning in Covenant Presbytery’s Supplemental Brief.
Conclusion
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.
God continued to build His Church in Jonesboro. Christ Redeemer Church in Jonesboro is thriving under a new church planter. The congregation is meeting both on the Lord’s Day morning and evening. New families and singles have joined. They have a new, gospel-centered organizing pastor who preaches the whole counsel of God faithfully week by week. And the congregation is looking again toward particularizing next year.
At the congregational meeting referenced at the start of this article, one man asked TE Norton if the church plant was dissolved and the Judicial Commission found the men not guilty, would there be a church in Jonesboro to come back to and apologize as he promised to do. By God’s grace, that church plant still exists and continues to testify to God’s goodness to them and His grace for all people in Christ.
Hear from Mr Paul Harrell & TE Dominic Aquila on the Westminster Standard Podcast.
SJC 2022-07 Apellee’s Brief, p. 5.
op. cit., p. 6.
SJC 2022-07 Record of the Case, p. 424.
GA50 Handbook, p. 2065. emphasis added.
op. cit., pp. 2067-2068.
op cit., pp. 2068 , 2070. emphasis original.
I might buy some Elders a BCO. It would save them lots of trouble. Thank you so much for bringing this to light. I am sorry that it caused some to leave the PCA in Jonesboro. It also caused some to leave a PCA church in Memphis. I hope this strengthens the PCA over all to desire and seek the purity of Christ’s Bride.
I knew something was up from mission committee meetings at my home church. Then I found your articles through the Aquila Report. Over the first four, I was wondering if there was bias, and that any rebuttal would be in session and presbytery minutes and not publicly available. Then the SJC report in the last article validated what was said in the first four. In light of this I have to wonder if BCO 35-13 can allow for bias in the court when it is judge, jury, and prosecutor, but that it should revert to the original wording that ends at "objection." (36-11 in the original 1975 PCA BCO)