Written by J. V. Fesko |
Thursday, February 29, 2024
The pastor reports to his elders—they alone have the authority to oversee the pastor and his conduct. Recognize the difference between matters of morality and Christian liberty. And don’t always assume that the pastor’s salary pays for everything that you see. It could very well be a gift or some other form of income that has provided him and his family with a needed amenity. Assume the best, not the worst, about your pastor and his family. And do what you can to make life in the bubble more bearable for them.

One of the challenges that pastors and their families face is life in the goldfish bowl. In many other vocations a person can go to work, do his job, come home, and his home life and family stay out of view. My father worked for a tech giant for 37 years and I can count on my fingers the number of times that I interacted with my father’s co-workers. The same cannot be said about the pastor and his family.
When a church hires a pastor there is the expectation that he will bring his family to church with him. This means, like it or not, everyone in the church observes the pastor’s family on a regular basis. For better or worse, people in the church see most everything that the pastor’s family does: they take note of the clothes they wear, the books they read, the car that brings them to church, the movies they talk about, and their behavior. For example, I once rented a car to drive to presbytery and the rental agency was closed on Saturday when I returned. I decided to drive the car to church on Sunday morning and then return it first thing Monday morning. Other factors in this scenario were: I received a free upgrade because the “fancy” car was all they had in the lot; my gas and the cost of the rental were covered by my presbytery, which reimbursed ministers for the mileage they drove. So, everything was above-board in this situation. Nevertheless, when I drove up to church that Sunday morning my wife overheard someone say, “Well, I guess we must be paying the pastor too much money if he’s driving a new car!” Rightly or wrongly, I gently informed this person of the situation and they seemed to be relieved.
In another scenario I was walking out of church after a Sunday morning worship service. It seemed like an ordinary Sunday—in particular, there were a number of small children and infants making their usual noises during the worship service. But whose child was singled out as making a lot of noise that morning? Yes, my one-year-old son. The reality of the situation was that my son wasn’t in the worship service that morning—
Read More
Related Posts:

And so the end result of it all is that we find a member of our high court saying that more harm will be done by barring self-professed homosexuals from office than by allowing it to them, and doing his utmost to plead their case in the guise of speaking as a disinterested ecclesiastical judge. Let the reader ponder that, weep, and pray earnestly to God that he opens our eyes and grants us repentance.

In the previous installments (Part One and Part Two) we considered David Coffin’s arguments against Overtures 23 and 37 to the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order (BCO). Now we conclude by responding to his final arguments against Overture 37 (O37). In this section we find Coffin objecting to the requirement that “in an examination for office, with respect to personal character, the court is directed to give ‘specific attention to potentially notorious concerns.’” He says “the phrase ‘potentially notorious concerns’ is problematic for a rule to give guidance to an examination” and that it is “a peculiar requirement, as it is hard to see how potential notoriety is a relevant concern in this context.” Why is it odd to consider how a man’s character and reputation might be perceived by others, both within the church and without (1 Tim. 3:2, 7; Titus 1:6-7)?
Coffin says that “what follows is a parade of horribles, beginning with ‘relational sins.’ I must confess that I haven’t a clue what ‘relational sins’ refers to.” The section of O37 that Coffin is referencing is meant to modify BCO 21-4e. Compare BCO 21-5, Q. 7:
Do you engage to be faithful and diligent in the exercise of all your duties as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel, whether personal or relational, private or public; and to endeavor by the grace of God to adorn the profession of the Gospel in your manner of life, and to walk with exemplary piety before the flock of which God shall make you overseer? (emphasis added)
It is reasonable to conclude that “relational” has the same meaning in O37 when it is attached to “sins” as it does in the current BCO 21-5 when it describes a minister’s duties. If relational duties are those that touch upon how an elder relates to his church, presbytery, etc., then it follows that relational sins are ones in which an elder does not stand in a right relation to the various people and courts to which he is bound by oath and possession of office. One might be forgiven for thinking that Coffin, as an officer who has answered BCO 21-5’s ordination questions, and, yet more, as an SJC member, ought to understand the meaning of the term.
He continues by objecting to O37’s parenthetical elaboration of “sexual immorality” with such examples as fornication and pornography use, asking “why these, and not other forms of sexual sin?” and “what is the standard for inclusion?” He objects to such a list, saying that “when you have a list, as part of a rule, the question provoked is always, what of the matters left out?” He admits the overture’s mitigation (“such as, but not limited to”), but thinks it insufficient:
Whenever one puts such a list in a rule, the question is always, are there other concerns or not? And if there are other concerns, why are these more important than the ones left out? Do these have some special significance that others do not have? Such language introduces significant uncertainty as how the rule is to be interpreted.
In this objection the TE Coffin ‘misses the forest for the trees.’ His objection fails to recognize the important fact that a list can be intended to give an idea of what is meant without trying to be a complete catalogue. The use of non-exhaustive lists is an accepted type of legislative style, and it appears already in the current BCO (e.g., 34-7).
Coffins says that, “The last defect to consider, and it strikes me as fatal, is found in these words: ‘While imperfections will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus.’” This means simply that men shouldn’t have bad reputations or be conspicuous for their tendency to always modify ‘Christian’ with an adjective describing a sinful lifestyle when they describe themselves. Yet Coffin regards it as insurmountably difficult. A thought: maybe the problem lies rather with the critic than with the language? He continues his objection here:
This requires the examining court to have some way of discovering both how a person is seen by others (some others, or a majority of others?) and how a person speaks about himself (some of the time, or most of the time?). Is he known by others according to his remaining sinfulness (some or mostly?) and does he speak of himself with respect to his remaining sinfulness (some or mostly?) rather than the work of the Holy Spirit?
Coffin’s quarrel isn’t with Overture 37 at this point: it’s with the Apostle Paul. Apply Coffin’s argument that such careful examination of reputation/character is impracticable to 1 Tim. 3:2 (“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach”) and 3:7 (“Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil”), both of which set high standards that require diligent verification, and you can see the impropriety of his objection.
Indeed, Coffin’s quarrels with our current standards, as BCO 21-4 already establishes that a presbytery is to carefully examine a candidate’s “acquaintance with experiential religion, especially his personal character and family management (based on the qualifications set out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, and Titus 1:6-9).” And in so far as O37 and BCO 21-4 are essentially based upon Paul’s admonitions concerning the character of elders, Coffin comes near to having a critical attitude to the substance, if not the letter, of Scripture itself.
But perhaps the most curious thing about Coffin’s objection here is that it brings him into contradiction with himself. Near the end of his piece, he quotes the portion of BCO 21-4 that I have just quoted and says that this “and the like language in BCO 24-1, has been, and will continue to be, sufficient to set forth concisely the examining court’s Scriptural responsibility.” Follow the logic here. When O37 suggests a rigorous examination of a candidate’s character and reputation Coffin launches a flurry of detailed objections that he thinks make it impracticable. When our current standards already require such a rigorous examination, he thinks it makes them perfectly sufficient and lovely. The only difference between Overture 37 and the current BCO 21-4 is that Overture 37 seeks to elaborate upon the required examination, and to give some detailed instruction as to what it should include.
In continuing his line of argument Coffin makes a curious claim, for he says this of examining a man’s reputation:
This presents the court with a remarkably difficult and complicated task. Consider, for example, Rosaria Butterfield, a same-sex attracted woman who, by God’s grace, came to faith in Christ, and has done wonderful work in sharing her testimony. Let us imagine she was a man, and thus potentially qualified for office. The sentence under review, it seems, would exclude her from office because she is surely known by reputation and by her self-profession according to her remaining sinfulness. She is, of course, known for more. However, the text requires “not be known” by remaining sinfulness “but rather by” the work of the Holy Spirit. This phrasing presents a false dichotomy.
It is not “remarkably difficult and complicated” to determine whether men are known by their sin rather than by the work of grace in their lives when they very conspicuously describe themselves as ‘[insert adjective for sinful lifestyle here] Christians’ in front of the whole world. That notwithstanding, look at Coffin’s claims about Rosaria Butterfield. I have never read or heard where Mrs. Butterfield regards herself as ‘same-sex attracted’ or wishes to be known as such by others, and this runs contrary to all I have ever heard from her on this point. Indeed, I am confident that she would not appreciate being called a “same-sex attracted woman,” and on her website she describes herself as a “former professor” and “homeschool mother, author, and speaker,” whose mentions of her former life seem to always to speak of it as past, not present.
It is, to boot, a weird argument – if Rosaria were a man . . . but she’s not, and if she were it does not follow that she would either desire office or consider herself fit for it. It is hard to escape the feeling that Coffin just wanted an excuse to mention Butterfield and try to (mistakenly) claim her as an example for his side. And even if we grant his argument, substituting, say, Sam Allberry (as David Cassidy does), his conclusion is meaningless: for many men of talent and virtue are yet not fit for office, it being restricted to the narrow class of the called and qualified, and there being more to the qualifications than some virtues and talent. In this same vein Coffin quotes Kyle Keating’s Assembly speech:
I don’t believe it was the intent of those who put forth these overtures to disqualify men like me from ordained office. I think, however, that these overtures are worded in a way that they could very well be used to accomplish that purpose. Does the Body really wish to put this language in our Book of Church Order that could potentially be used to disqualify men in good standing who are a part of the kind of work that put together this report on human sexuality?
Here plainness of speech is needed, and I bid you remember, dear reader, that such bluntness is no arrogance or unkindness, but rather in keeping with the injunctions of Scripture (e.g., Lev. 19:17). Those of us that believe the denomination needs a strong response to our worldliness in these matters believe that this language is intended to divest and bar from office all men who experience homosexual lust, including Mr. Keating. Maybe we are wrong in interpreting it that way, but I ask: if divestiture and prohibition is not the intention, what do Keating and Coffin or anyone else think the point of Overture 37 is?
For his part Coffin asserts that Keating’s speech “should have carried the day” and says that it “is my hope that his speech will now help us to remedy our error.” In this he shows he is a partisan, not an objective ecclesiastical legal ‘expert,’ a thing which the reader ought to bear in mind as he ponders Coffin’s arguments.
In concluding let me note that I have argued against certain elements of Coffin’s opposition to Overtures 23 and 37; I am not directly arguing for the overtures. Much good will hopefully come from them if they pass (as seems likely, if not certain), but there are also good reasons for being suspicious of or even opposed to at least Overture 23, and perhaps 37 as well (see Larry Ball’s “Why I Plan to Vote Against BCO Homosexual Changes”). Those reasons are not for the most part Coffin’s reasons, however. The concern here was not that Coffin and others oppose the overtures, but on what grounds, and of what this says about their theories of polity and practice. It seems we are bent on worldly respectability at any cost and sneer at God’s Word with its plain statements on these matters. We pride ourselves on our love of litigiousness, ‘decency,’ ‘maturity,’ and ‘order,’ little realizing that we do but glory in our shame and blinding ourselves to the baleful influence of the world, the flesh, and the cunning devil, all of which lie near in these matters. And so the end result of it all is that we find a member of our high court saying that more harm will be done by barring self-professed homosexuals from office than by allowing it to them, and doing his utmost to plead their case in the guise of speaking as a disinterested ecclesiastical judge. Let the reader ponder that, weep, and pray earnestly to God that he opens our eyes and grants us repentance.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, SC. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the leadership or members of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church.

For numerous reasons it is my belief that now is not the time to leave the PCA, and I would encourage churches and teaching elders contemplating such action to stay and “fight the good fight.”  I would encourage more churches to become actively involved in both their presbyteries and at the General Assembly level. The ruling elders of our denomination have recently risen up and enabled us to have a greater voice for our conservative beliefs, and we must not retreat. 

Probably no one is more disappointed in the failure of Overture 15 than I am. Overture 15 would have codified the position that Side B homosexuals will not be allowed to be ordained as officers in the PCA. Last year, I predicted it would not pass the two-thirds threshold vote required of presbyteries, but until recently, I still maintained a small amount of hope.
How a statement so straight-forward and plain could fail is incomprehensible.  In days when perversion is becoming rampant in our society, we did not make a clear and unequivocal stand on this important issue. We failed to bear a good testimony to a generation living in darkness.
Like many of my brethren in the PCA, I must not only deal with disappointment but also with fatigue.  After fighting this battle for several years, I am tired and weary. Something in me just wants to give up, transfer to another denomination, or just become part of a local independent church. Some PCA churches undoubtedly will withdraw into their own local shell and isolate themselves, ignoring what goes on in the broader church.
I know that those who voted against the Overture will have well-developed and refined theological arguments for their vote.  I suspect that their consciences are clear.
However, one of my major concerns is perception. For example, I have heard others outside of the PCA interpret our action as opening the floodgate for homosexual preachers.  I do not think they understand all the nuances of the action, but regardless, this is how the PCA is now perceived in reformed and evangelical circles. At times, perception is everything.  This may not be everything in this case, but it is a major consideration.
I have dedicated much of my life to the PCA.  I am hurt because her character has been tarnished. It is akin to someone impugning the reputation of my own wife.
Yet, I am reminded of a few biblical passages that give me some encouragement.  “And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for we shall reap if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).  For we have “not resisted to the point of shedding blood (Heb. 14:4).” Weariness is never a reason to give up the fight.  Weariness produces a temptation that must be resisted.
I am encouraged by several of things in the PCA.  First, it was heartening to me that even though the majority report of the Committee of Commissioners at the 49th General Assembly voted against the Overture, a minority report supporting the Overture was adopted by the Court.  According to the latest report at www.pcapolity.com, 45 presbyteries have now cast a positive vote for Overture 15, a majority of the total of 88 presbyteries, with 12 more still to vote.  I am also encouraged that a number of other overtures on this same issue will be forthcoming at the 50th General Assembly in Memphis. Greg Johnson and the Memorial Church have left the PCA.  This has promoted the peace and purity of our denomination.  There is an awareness among conservative presbyteries that we need to put more of our men on the GA Nominating Committee.  Thus, even with this defeat, overall, there are positive signs of hope.
Then too, I can always come home to my own Presbytery (Westminster) where we have already taken our stand on this issue. Only a judicial case against us could possibly change our minds, and I do not see that happening. In a document adopted by our Presbytery, (a document that does not rise to the level of our confessional standards), we have stated clearly that “men who identify as homosexual, even those who identify as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy in that self-identification, are disqualified from holding office in Westminster Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America.”  Any man who seeks to become a part of this Presbytery will be sent a document containing this statement, and told if he does not agree with it, then he need not apply for membership. He will not pass our examination. I would encourage other presbyteries to follow our example.
For numerous reasons it is my belief that now is not the time to leave the PCA, and I would encourage churches and teaching elders contemplating such action to stay and “fight the good fight.”  I would encourage more churches to become actively involved in both their presbyteries and at the General Assembly level. The ruling elders of our denomination have recently risen up and enabled us to have a greater voice for our conservative beliefs, and we must not retreat.
We are Presbyterians and we do believe that the church is connected by way of graded courts. We are not Congregationalists. We believe that our system of government is biblical, or so at least we took a vow declaring it to be so.  Every elder in the PCA has an obligation to participate in the work of the church at both the Presbytery and General Assembly level. To fail to do so, apart from providential reasons, is to fall short of our calling by God.
It is my personal conviction that Presbyterianism in America reflects modern consumerism more than it does the Bible or even the examples of our heroes of the past.  We are raised in a culture of a multitude of choices evident every time we go shopping.  We can buy a Chevrolet or a Ford. We are free to move from one state to another at our own discretion.  Sadly, this consumerism mentality has negated a right reading of the Scriptures and carried over into our “religious” choices.  American religiosity now allows us to move with ease from one church to another, and from one denomination to another any time we like. This is not to say that it may be necessary in some cases, but the choice is just too easy.
We recently celebrated the life of J. Gresham Machen, 100 years after he penned his landmark book “Christianity and Liberalism” in 1923.   However, little attention was given to the fact that he was suspended from the ministry by a Permanent Judicial Commission of New Brunswick Presbytery. He then appealed the matter to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly and lost the appeal.  When under duress, he did not immediately transfer to another denomination, or walk down the street to form a “Continuing Presbyterian Church,” never to be heard from again.  He used every avenue available to him in the Church.  He stayed in his church for the duration of the fight.  Not only should he be a model for us theologically, but also ecclesiastically.
Machen’s day was a different era. Thoughts of transfer, starting a new denomination, or even quitting was never the first thing on their minds.  His fame was greatly enhanced because of his courage before the church courts, and thus he became the hero that he is today. Heroes are not created by disappearing into a fog of obscurity, but by being suspended from the ministry (defrocked) by your own Presbytery for unjust cause. Heroes are made by those who endure to the end.
So, how do we overcome our discouragement.  We rise to the occasion and fight on.  We do not succumb to temptation and flee when the opposition appears strong, but rather we choose the pathway of endurance, while praying for victory.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: