Most PCA elders have accepted Good Faith Subscription in the sense that they acknowledge stated differences are permitted within the denomination. However, there is a lack of clarity about what should happen once a stated difference is made known. BCO 21-4.f states that it is the obligation of presbyteries to consider whether the difference undermines the fundamentals of the system of the Westminster Standards as well as the vitals of religion. 

For as long as I have been a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (ordained in 2011), there have been intramural debates within the denomination about subscription to the Church’s agreed-upon edition of the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger, and Shorter Catechisms) as its theological documents. The disagreement has not been about the existence of the Standards, but rather about how they should be applied. It is not my intention to rehearse for you the history of the development of the PCA’s official position on this point. Rather, my intention is simply to draw some observations about the current ecclesiastical lay of the land, consider some wrong responses to the present reality, and encourage some ways to move forward.
What Is Good Faith Subscription?
The term “Good Faith Subscription” does not appear anywhere in the PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO). However, it is the label given to what is codified and described in BCO 21-4.e:
While our Constitution does not require the candidate’s affirmation of every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, it is the right and responsibility of the Presbytery to determine if the candidate is out of accord with any of the fundamentals of these doctrinal standards and, as a consequence, may not be able in good faith sincerely to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures (cf. BCO 21-5, Q.2; 24-6, Q.2).
This section gives clarity about one part of the PCA’s relationship with the Westminster Standards. It outlines step one in understanding the PCA’s view on subscription: a candidate may disagree with parts of the Westminster Standards. This reality is understood and practiced within the PCA. By way of example, the Candidates & Credentials Committee of the Savannah River Presbytery (on which I serve) has received stated differences from candidates ranging from the omission of Aramaic as one of the languages of the Old Testament autographs (Westminster Confession of Faith 1-8), to issues surrounding the Bible’s account of creation (WCF 4-1), psalmody (WCF 21-5), images of Jesus (WCF 21-1), the keeping of the Lord’s Day (WCF 21-8), and others. The disagreement in the PCA, for the most part, is not about a man’s right to state a difference. It is rather about the degree to which such differences are acceptable.
The BCO does not permit a “carte blanche” holding of differences. Stating a difference subjects the candidate to the scrutiny of his particular presbytery. The Presbytery must examine the difference and make a decision regarding whether it is compatible with the Standards (BCO 21-4.f):
Therefore, in examining a candidate for ordination, the Presbytery shall…require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court’s judgment the candidate’s declared difference is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.
This paragraph provides step two in understanding the PCA’s view of on subscription. Our constitution in BCO 21-4.f makes it clear that one thing Good Faith Subscription does not mean is that all differences are de facto permissible. The presbytery is not obligated to “grant an exception.” The Presbytery grants an exception only when it judges a candidate’s stated difference as neither undermining the system of doctrine presented in the Westminster Standards nor denying the essence of the Christian religion. There are several implications of this mandated scrutiny.
Good Faith Subscription—Implications
First, a generic sincerity of position and a heartfelt love for God in Christ on the part of the candidate is not adequate in and of itself to grant an exception. In other words, a candidate does not need to deny a fundamental doctrine of the Christian Faith (e.g., the Trinity or the Incarnation) in order to be barred from ordained ministry in the PCA. A denial of any doctrine expressed in the Westminster Standards of the PCA – even when such a matter is not shared by other Christians – is important and must be examined (and granted) before a man takes up a particular call in the PCA. It is at this point that the PCA’s troubles start.
Read More
Related Posts:

In 2 Chronicles 13, we find Judah about to face off in battle against Israel. Following the glorious, climactic reign of Solomon, the kingdom by this point had split in two.
We know that Rehoboam took foolish counsel from other young men and answered the people harshly. When the overburdened people asked for a lightening of Solomon’s heavy-handed rule, Rehoboam doubled down, walked into a fight with his words, and divided a nation. One man’s folly ended the golden age of Israel’s national existence.
Some years later, Abijah (Solomon’s grandson and David’s great grandson) led Judah in battle against Jeroboam and Israel. The wide angle view of Abijah’s life was hardly the picture of obedience to God’s law, yet in this snapshot he seems to have been in the right.
As the battle neared, Judah was outnumbered, with 400,000 set against Israel’s 800,000. Despite the fact that Jeroboam’s armies surrounded and began to ambush Judah’s fighting men, Abijah’s troops would win a stunning victory. In the end, some 500,000 Israelites—chosen men, the most valiant warriors—were slain. The victory went to Judah because unlike Israel, it had not forsaken God.
Despite the “victory,” it was ultimately tragic—a civil war that cost nearly as many lives as the American Civil War. You could trace all the senseless carnage and shattered lives back to the failure of leadership displayed by Rehoboam. One man’s soft character led to the death of three quarters of a million of his own people and changed the direction of the nation forever.
Abijah’s speech before the battle focuses in on this aspect of Rehoboam’s character and past actions.
Hard Words About a Soft Man
As the two armies formed battle lines, Abijah told Jeroboam that he, Jeroboam, was able to revolt against Rehoboam and divide the kingdom because Rehoboam was “young and irresolute and could not withstand them” (2 Chronicles 13:7).
You might pass over a word like “irresolute,” as I almost did, except that I noticed the ESV gives us a footnote. As an alternate meaning, the Hebrew word being used denotes that Rehoboam was “soft of heart.”
While the ESV translates the Hebrew word rak as “irresolute,” it means “tender, delicate, soft.” It can mean “tender, delicate, especially in body, implying weakness of undeveloped character.” It can also mean “weak of heart, timid,” or referring to “soft words.”
Keep in mind, at this pivotal time Abijah is speaking about his father. Maybe Rehoboam passed on the lesson of his own failure to his son so that he would not repeat it. Maybe Abijah simply knew his history. In any event, the son didn’t miss the point made by a generation-impacting failure of leadership: one man’s soft character can destroy a nation. He wasn’t about to make the same mistake.
Rehoboam altered the fate of his nation because he was a soft man. His softness seems to have come from a number of factors: his youth, inexperience, and perhaps the circumstances of his upbringing. He was weak of character and delicate, likely because he was raised in opulence, wealth, and comfort. We also know that he wasn’t faithful to God’s Word. Soft men come from soft places and soft people.
It reminds me of something John Piper once said in Chapel at Southern Seminary. He warned the students that the pristine and decadent campus could destroy their souls because it was so “posh and nice.” Those are the kind of surroundings that can make men soft, cowardly, and compromising when they should be hard, resolute, and courageous to oppose evil. Piper’s words were an accurate foreshadowing of what would happen to the seminary because of Critical Race Theory and Woke Politics.
You can also think of the Spartans, who realized hard warriors came from hard training and a hard life. Or John, who didn’t grow up with white collar amenities but in a wilderness with sparsity and danger.
John: The Hard Man Par Excellence
Compare Rehoboam’s softness to what Jesus said about John the Baptist in Matthew 11.
Speaking to the crowds about John, Jesus asked, ““What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses” (Matthew 11:7-8).
I’ve talked about this before, but the word here for soft in the Greek is malakos, which also translates elsewhere to effeminate. Soft men in soft places (king’s palaces) wear soft clothing. They live in, fellowship with, and adorn themselves with softness. Their environment and friends are soft, and it seeps into their bones—much like xenoestrogens that soften plastic & human skin tissue.
Rehoboam was that son raised in a king’s house. He was delicate and, as a result, dangerous to his people. He lacked the courageous character to confront rebellion with competence. Ironically, a wise, hard man would have spoken a soft word and would have saved the nation; instead, a soft man spoke a hard word and caused horrendous national division, death, and destruction. Too often, soft men wrongly think “tough talk” will make up for their own insecurity, when it actually works to fan the flames of conflict. A wise man knows when to use a gentle word of appeal and when to roar like a lion.

It seems as though the American church, having taken a disastrous turn into (largely but not exclusively) right wing politics, is now in danger of overcompensating and repenting in a progressive, rather than a biblical, direction. Fault Lines exposes this and thus is largely a book about American cultural wars and American church politics. 

There are not many books that have such an impact that they have made me change my mind. It turns out that Faultlines is one of them. Initially, I approached the book with a degree of scepticism. After all I had heard on the evangelical grapevine that it was ‘extremist’, ‘unbalanced’, and that Baucham was guilty of ‘plagiarism’. And I am against racism and think it is a major problem in the US and the church. However, I am thankful that instead of just reading about the book, I read it myself. And I can only suggest you do the same.
Baucham’s thesis is that the current culture wars in the US over racism and Critical Race Theory (CRT) are in danger of splitting the evangelical church and causing considerable harm. He believes that the acceptance of some of the language and premises of CRT by evangelical leaders is the acceptance of a Trojan horse. He argues that ‘the United States is on the verge of a race war, if not a complete cultural meltdown’ (p. 7).
Fault Lines is not a fundamentalist diatribe or political rant. It is a well-researched, well-written and well-argued clarion call from someone who has not only studied the issues in some depth but, as a black descendant of slaves, has lived them. Fault Lines is not a detailed academic textbook, although it should be required reading for all evangelical students. It is, as Baucham stated in an interview, “the view from 35,000 feet.” If you are confused about what CRT is (and some evangelicals even deny that it exists), then this book is an excellent primer.
His personal story is powerful. He grew up poor without a father, was bussed to a white school and has battled against racism throughout his life. He has walked the walk. Maybe we should listen to his story rather than the white saviours like Robin DiAngelo who make their living out of telling white people they are racist by virtue of their skin colour? The notion that if you are white, then you are racist is itself racist. For Christians we need to ask what has the priority: our skin colour, our culture or our identity in Christ?
Baucham is controversial—at times breathtakingly so. For example, he points out that he had never heard of a black pastor arguing for racial reconciliation or lamenting that their church was 99% black. He states the incontrovertible truth that Africans sold Africans into slavery—to Arabs and to Europeans. And the not so incontrovertible view that ‘America is one of the least racist countries in the world’ (p. 201).
One highlight is the exposure of the false narratives that play such a part in the impressions that many of us base our opinions upon. Some quotes stunned me: ‘We’re literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step outside the comfort of our homes’ (NBA star LeBron James, p. 45). Or the oft cited and completely false claim from the National Academy of Sciences that ‘one in every 1,000 black men and boys can expect to be killed by police in this country’ (pp. 47–48). That would mean that 18,000 black men and boys would be killed by police. The facts are that, in 2014, 250 black men were killed, of whom only 19 were unarmed. In 2019, the figure was nine (p. 113). How we interpret facts is also crucial. What do you do with the fact that 96% of those killed by police are male? Is this de facto proof that the police are discriminatory against men?
Baucham’s strongest and most important insight is that in dealing with anti-racism, we are dealing a with a new religion—complete with its own cosmology, law, priesthood and canon.
Read More