Following the preaching, eleven first time delegates were introduced to the court, six of whom serve as pastors and the remaining 5 as ruling elders. Nominations were then open for moderator. Much to his surprise, Rev. Dr. Pete Smith of Covenant Fellowship RP Church was elected. He was an excellent moderator.

The Psalmist says, “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him” (Ps. 128:5-6).
The 191st Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) commenced on Tuesday, June 20, 2023. Following several years of ongoing discipline matters and formal complaints, the Lord gave us a year of both weeping and rejoicing. The meeting opened with a devotional message from the retiring moderator, Rev. Harry Metzger. He preached from I Corinthians 15, and three others preaching through the week would bring sermons from the same text: Revs. Ma and Blocki from North Hills (Pittsburgh, PA) and Rev. Dr. Ben Glaser from Bethany Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP). Following the preaching, eleven first time delegates were introduced to the court, six of whom serve as pastors and the remaining 5 as ruling elders. Nominations were then open for moderator. Much to his surprise, Rev. Dr. Pete Smith of Covenant Fellowship RP Church was elected. He was an excellent moderator.
Most of Tuesday was spent working through a Business of Synod report that made recommendations on how various papers, communications, and complaints ought to be handled. Eleven communications needed to be processed by the court. Most of the complaints were returned to their authors with the court choosing not to speak to them. One complaint, which argued against the Pacific Coast Presbytery sustaining a pastoral examination following the complainant being dissatisfied with the answers of an examinee. This complaint resulted in a study committee which will seek to give counsel to pastors and elders who find themselves in worship contexts where the Psalms are not being sung exclusively.
The one complaint that was heard (and did not result in a study committee) was from Rev. Adam Keuhner against the Great Lakes Gulf Presbytery (GLG). Keuhner argued that when presbytery rebuked two elders for administering the sacrament to a disciplined minister, it was not a sufficient censure. After hearing both sides of this complaint, the synod sustained the complaint 50-40 against the GLG (GLG delegates were not allowed to vote in this matter).
Three other communications resulted in actions from the synod: A paper that came through the Midwest Presbytery (MWP) sought to change the language of our current Testimony regarding abortion. As it reads currently abortion is murder “except possibly” in the case where a mother’s life is at risk. The proposal is seeking to bring equal dignity to the life of the mother and the child. This was sent to a study committee to report back next year.
The Orlando Session petitioned the synod to admonish the Reformed Presbyterian Women’s Association (RPWA) for suing a retired minister who lived at the RP Home. The petition sought to urge the RPWA to seek forgiveness from the minister and to take actions to seek a session’s aid in matters that would otherwise go to court (I Cor. 6). The Synod upheld the petition, admonishing the RPWA and urging them to facilitate change in their practice.
The Presbytery of the Alleghenies (POA) submitted a paper on the RPCNA’s practice of women serving in the diaconate. (The RPCNA has had women serving as deacons since 1888.) A five-man study committee was established to study the biblical practice of women serving in the diaconate as well as the nature and purpose of ordination. They will report their findings at next year’s Synod.
Several study committees as well as judicial commissions also reported. Over the last year, two commissions have been working with the former leadership of a congregation that was, sadly, caught in the middle of a minor-on-minor sexual abuse scandal. The pastor was deposed and suspended from communion, and the elders were suspended from office in 2022. These commissions have been working to the end of repentance and reconciliation. The former ruling elders told their commission that they were no longer able to work with them, violating the agreement reached when they pled guilty in 2022. Synod elevated their discipline and deposed them from office by an 88-32 vote. The former pastor, who rejected the authority and discipline of the RPCNA, was excommunicated by a 99-24 vote. The former moderator called him on the phone to inform him and then the pronouncement of excommunication was read.
It was a sober and dreadful experience and you could feel the heaviness of the room and see the tears streaming down men’s faces.
A few study committees will continue into another year, either not reporting or needing to rework some of the ideas presented: Kingship of Christ (did not report); Recusals (sent back to committee); and Vows and Queries (did not report). A study paper seeking to define the previous acts of synod (191 years’ worth) encouraged the synod to maintain the written understanding of previous synodical acts: they are the “law and order of the church” rather than merely suggestive or informative. This committee’s work began in 2018 or 2019 and came to synod through the GLG. The synod voted overwhelmingly in favor of previous acts remaining as law and order.
A major work that was sent back to the committee was a paper seeking to set up a task force to response to claims of abuse. The paper sought a standing committee of thirteen made up of pastors, elders and professionals in various fields (medical, social work, police, etc.) that would serve a resource for those with questions as to whether certain cases in the church would qualify as abuse. The synod debated this extensively before returning the paper that it may be improved.
We sowed in tears. We also reaped in joy. Several boards and agencies of the church reported on their work in the past year. Crown and Covenant reported on their book sales and some of the things in the works (including posthumously published works by Rev. Gordon Keddie). Geneva College reported, and we heard from president, Dr. Troup. Dr. Troup presented a brief presentation on how Geneva instructs from biblical literacy and confessional fidelity. We also heard from Dr. Barry York on the ministry of the RP Seminary, which seeks to be biblical, confessional, pastoral, and devotional.
The RPWA’s representative spoke on the RP Home and disability ministries. Reformation Translation Fellowship is expanding beyond the Chinese language for the first time since the 1940s and the Chinese Education Fund seeks to help Chinese families who do not want their children in state-run (Communist) public schools.
The court also heard fraternal greetings from three denominations with whom we have relationships: Dr. Ben Glaser of the ARP was already mentioned and we also heard Rev. Ian Wright of the OPC and Rev. Bartel Elshout from the Heritage Reformed Churches. Each presbytery of the RPCNA also reported on the highlights of their ministries in the past year.
Various missionary arms of the church shared exciting news. Global Missions reported on their several fields and some of the challenges that their teams face. From South Sudan to unpublishable locations, the RP Church is laboring faithfully in fields ripe for harvest. RP Global also presented a revised set of bylaws that were returned to them failing to be approved by the synod. We heard from two commissions that plant churches and train pastors in nations I am not allowed to write about. The Central and South America (CASA) committee reported on their labors in seeking to facilitate relationships with existing congregations in CASA. A commission of Global Missions was set up to ordain men and plant churches in CASA. Another missionary commission reported on the number of worshipers in three presbyteries in yet another nation I cannot publicly mention: 16,400 Reformed Presbyterian worshipers meet from Lord’s Day to Lord’s Day in this unmentioned nation. The numbers of amazing!
Some of the other numbers and dates-discussions were of interest. We have grown slightly in membership and attendance although last year we closed five congregations. Besides these five congregations, a dozen Canadian congregations departed this year to form the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Canada. This is a good thing! The Synod is also very interested in boards reporting salaries of employees in the name of greater transparency. Following several motions, these salaries will now be published in the Minutes of Synod. The salary of every pastor is already published annually. Other number discussions include an increase in ruling elders in the denomination and the fact that we have almost twice as many pastors on our rolls as we have congregations (many are not active, not serving, or retired). Giving has increased in our church and the denominational arm for giving (RPM&M) has increased significantly—of course there are more boards, committees, and agencies that are seeking financial assistance as well. June 11-14, 2024 is our next synod. RP International is June 25-July 1, 2024.
After several long days of difficulty, joy, fellowship, suffering, and labor—we adjourned on Friday just before noon. Many prayers were prayed. Many Psalms were sung. Many tears were shed. As brothers we looked to Jesus together to establish the work of our hands and to bring forth sheaves with rejoicing. In the words of the Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs, “grace teaches us how to make a mixture of sorrow and a mixture of joy together.”
Nathan Eshelman is a Minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and Pastor of the Orlando RPCNA in Orlando, Fla.
Related Posts:

Resist the temptation to partisanship. Just because others want to police the teachers who help you love Christ and your family and your neighbors better doesn’t mean that you need to respond in kind. Over the years, I’ve benefited greatly from a variety of Christian leaders, including both Doug Wilson and Kevin DeYoung (and John Piper and Mark Dever and Al Mohler and Tim Keller and so on). One of the most refreshing aspects of the Moscow Mood to me is the freedom to benefit from these men for what they’ve done well, and to publicly commend them without any hesitation, and to do so while disagreeing with them when appropriate and necessary. Others may regard these types of difference and disagreement as a barrier to fellowship and Christian camaraderie. But you need not. So don’t be ashamed to acknowledge the teachers that have helped you to follow Christ more closely.

One of the reasons I’ve long appreciated Kevin DeYoung is that he and I both value clarity. That’s why I was eager to read his recent critique of Doug Wilson and the “Moscow Mood.” Having done so, I understand why many folks have found it helpful. He’s raising a lot of the right issues. At the same time, I have some questions about his analysis and some important disagreements with his prescription.
DeYoung’s Critique
Let me begin with a brief summary of DeYoung’s main lines of criticism. He contends that Moscow’s appeal is largely visceral, not intellectual. People are drawn to a cultural, aesthetic, and political posture, a culture-building and culture-warring mood or vibe that says, “We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”
DeYoung acknowledges that there are aspects of this mood or vibe that are commendable, but he nevertheless foresees “serious problems” with “the long term spiritual effects of admiring and imitating the Moscow mood,” to wit, that it is too often “incompatible with Christian virtue, inconsiderate of other Christians, and ultimately inconsistent with the stated aims of Wilson’s Christendom project.”
To demonstrate these problems, DeYoung highlights two promo videos for No Quarter November (NQN), Canon Press’s annual event in which they give away lots of free books and launch new resources on the Canon+ app, all while Doug Wilson writes weekly blog posts in which he speaks pointedly, with no qualifications, nuance, or hedging. DeYoung sees the promo videos as representative of the concerning aspects of the Moscow Mood. In particular, per DeYoung, the videos display a sarcastic and edgy tone; they take cheap shots at other Christians (such as the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and G3 Ministries); they explicitly encourage culture-warring and culture-building; and they are focused on Wilson himself (as rebel, gunslinger, taboo-breaker, and hero for crazy times).
According to DeYoung, NQN is selling “a carefully cultivated personality and image,” a vibe that is built on a “fundamentally oppositional framework,” “an adversarial stance toward the world” and toward cowardly Christians. “Differentiation is key,” DeYoung says, “and this can only be sustained by a mood of antagonism and sharp antithesis,” one that builds a following through negative partisanship and refuses to link arms with other networks but instead forges an unbreakable loyalty to Wilson as the Outsider-Disruptor.
Satire as Rebuke
Like I said, I have some questions. For example, what is the proper role of satire and the serrated edge? It seems to me that a number of rhetorical devices are conflated throughout DeYoung’s article–writing with Chestertonian joy and Wodehousian verve, playfully mocking other Christians through memes, derisively mocking the folly and compromise of Christian leaders, shockingly indicting sin and idolatry through carefully deployed obscenities and vulgarities. Distinguishing these different types of rhetoric and their proper use would be immensely helpful and clarifying, but is not something that DeYoung takes the time to do. He opts instead to lump all these styles and strategies together.
With that in mind, let me take a stab at clarifying a few common confusions about satire. At one level, satire is an appeal to reality over against the absurdities of sin and rebellion. It often appeals to those who live amidst corruption and hypocrisy, while provoking those who practice them. But satire is also a form of rebuke and admonition, deployed to correct and reprove someone when they’re heading down a sinful or foolish path. Like other forms of rebuke, it operates on a dimmer switch. Light satire might be used to reprove the folly of a fellow Christian who needs some prodding to knock it off. Heavier satire might be used to skewer serious compromise on the part of professing Christians, with the rebuke acting as a sifting agent–with some responding to the satirical rebuke with humility, and others hardening their hearts. And the heaviest satire might be used to expose and condemn great wickedness and rebellion.
With that rubric, let’s consider some of DeYoung’s objections to Moscow’s use of satire. At one point, he argues that satire and mockery are inappropriate when dealing with serious wickedness in the culture. To mock the evil of the world with “Wokey, McWokeface” is “silly, unnecessary, and ultimately undermines the seriousness of the issue they are trying to address.” But wouldn’t this same criticism apply to Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27), asking if their God is asleep or relieving himself? Wasn’t idolatry “serious wickedness”? Or ask yourself this question: why is it presently culturally acceptable to mock biblical marriage and traditional child rearing, but “hateful” to mock the obvious and immoral absurdities that mark the sexual revolution? Could it be that one of the ways that the world advances its rebellion, its blasphemy and heresy, is by teaching us what to laugh at and by demanding that we take its folly seriously (as this short video on the Moral Imperative of Mockery argues)? Could it be that the Bible deploys satire as a high-stakes weapon, one that is particularly suited for the trenches of a culture war?
Or what about DeYoung’s objection that the serrated edge should be deployed only against the non-Christian world, and not against fellow Christian leaders. Well, again, if satire is a form of rebuke, then wouldn’t it be appropriate to use it to correct professing Christians? The Bible clearly doesn’t limit satire to the non-believing world. The shepherds of Israel, the priests, the Pharisees and Sadducees–all of these are subject to a variety of caricature, indictment, mockery, and scorn at the hands of the prophets and the Lord himself. And this doesn’t imply that every member of these groups was unregenerate. Some members of the Sanhedrin followed Christ. Did Christ’s satirical rebuke of them as a whole have anything to do with that?
Viewing satire as a form of rebuke helps to answer the particular examples that DeYoung highlights from the video–the jab at the ERLC and the shot at G3. In the first case, the Bible uses satire to rebuke the compromise and misplaced priorities of the leaders of God’s people (think of Christ’s criticism of the Pharisees for straining gnats and swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24)). The ERLC, which DeYoung commends as an allegedly conservative Christian bulwark, has arguably demonstrated precisely those kinds of misplaced priorities and compromise, whether it’s lobbying for liberal immigration reform and gun control or opposing anti-abortion legislation in Louisiana. It has decidedly not been on the same side as conservative Christians in key cultural battles. I suspect that DeYoung’s assessment of the NQN shot at the ERLC is owing both to a mistaken view of the appropriate targets of biblical satire as well as different assessments of the fidelity of that particular institution.
As for G3, the men associated with that ministry have publicly misrepresented and attacked Moscow (and Christian Nationalists more broadly) in various ways over the last six months while steadfastly refusing to have any clarifying conversations or discussions (despite repeated invitations to do so in a variety of formats). It’s ironic for DeYoung to chide Moscow for a playful jab when it’s Moscow who have repeatedly sought to find common ground with G3 (to no avail). A playful swipe is perhaps a good way to prod them to conduct themselves with greater charity and clarity when it comes to representing the views of fellow Christians.
In a slightly different category is the use of meme-making that playfully pokes fun at fellow believers. Think of the kind of banter that groups of men regularly engage in as a part of masculine friendship. In such circumstances, you earn the respect and trust of other men by being willing to take your lumps and to give as good as you get. Such playfulness is a sign of health, humility, and camaraderie. Even insults can be a sign of affection (and no, this isn’t an excuse for “locker room talk”).
Which brings me to the heaviest kind of satire–the use of vulgarities and obscenities to expose gross rebellion. Wilson has recently responded to another reasonable criticism of his (very rare) use of such rhetoric. Some critics give the impression that Wilson casually cusses like a sailor for the fun of it. While he admittedly did do a stint in the Navy, this characterization is simply untrue. His use of obscenities and vulgarities ought to be regarded as an intentional act of translation, one that he deploys sparingly and in particular contexts. When sin, folly, and idolatry are unrecognized for the evil that they are, the use of vulgar and obscene language translates the evil into a form that is both accurate and shocking, as when Ezekiel likens the idolatry of Israel to a woman who lusts after the genitals of donkeys. To use one of the more infamous examples, when the apostate Lutheran lady pastrix gave Gloria Steinem that award, she was saying something with the statue. Wilson simply translated it into English.
In all my years of discussing the use of satire, I’ve yet to hear one of Wilson’s critics provide an example of a faithful imitation and application of this prophetic mode of speech. If Wilson is doing it so wrong, where are the examples of Christian writers and preachers doing it right? Has DeYoung (or others who share his criticism of Moscow) ever used satire, mockery, and the serrated edge to rebuke the folly and rebellion around us? Both the Old Testament and New Testament are filled with the serrated edge in various forms, from short rebukes (“you foolish Galatians”) to imprecations to caricatures to scathing indictments to derisive mockery, and all of it undergirded with a deep joy and gratitude for God’s kindness. And yet outside of Moscow and the Babylon Bee, I can’t think of anyone attempting to deploy that kind of biblical speech in confronting worldliness and rebellion.
What’s Front and Center?
But I have more questions. DeYoung contends that Moscow does not put the right things “front and center.” He claims that Wilson’s online persona is not about introducing people to Reformed creeds and confessions, or explaining the books of the Bible, or about global missions to the uttermost parts of the earth, or about liturgy, preaching, prayer, and the ordinary means of grace. Now perhaps DeYoung might respond, “Yes, those resources are available, but they are not emphasized in Doug’s online persona.” But how are we assessing that? How many times does Canon have to tweet something before it is sufficiently front and center? How many times does Doug need to feature his commentaries in the header of his blog? How many bread and butter expository sermons does Doug need to preach for that to be a defining mark of his ministry? How many global missions conferences does Christ Church need to host in order to satisfy critics like DeYoung?
DeYoung does gesture toward a means of evaluation later in that same paragraph: “If Wilson and Canon Press believe that their bread and butter is about all those things (creeds, confessions, Bible, missions), then they should devote an entire month (or even a whole year) to just those things without any snark, without any sarcasm, and without any trolling of other Christians.” There’s the rub.
Read More
Related Posts:

Within such a post-truth society, the most countercultural thing that Christians can do is refuse to play the game. Whatever the world may pretend, we know that reality is a very stubborn thing, and it can only be evaded, not twisted into whatever shape we wish. Thus, even if others insist on casually lying to you or about you, you can still choose not to make any claims whose veracity you cannot vouch for with a straight face—however much you may feel they are true.

If you grew up as a Christian in the 1990s or early 2000s, chances are you were exposed to Christian worldview training that warned against the dangers of postmodernism. We were told that postmodernists did not believe there was such a thing as absolute truth: At best, all truth claims were relative, reflecting perspective and bias. At worst, they were just assertions of power by elites seeking to reinforce their privilege.
By this definition, we’re all postmoderns now.
Whereas some progressives were ideologically committed to this “hermeneutic of suspicion,” imbibing it from philosophers like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Richard Rorty, conservatives learned their suspicion from experience. As James Davison Hunter writes in his new book, Democracy and Solidarity, “Conservatives … looked around them and saw universities, news organizations, and even the new social media websites—all the proud inheritors of the liberal discourse tradition—cheerfully employing every tool at their disposal to restrict the range of acceptable opinion.” Truth claims, many of us concluded, were mere power plays.
Read More
Related Posts: