One, it is not merely a local problem, for the church is one and what happens or is tolerated in one section soon infects the others. This statement is essentially a denial of Scripture’s teaching that the church is a lump leavened by the barest amount of leaven (1 Cor. 5:6-7; Gal. 5:9). It takes – as with C.A. Briggs in the PCUSA or Robertson Smith in the Free Church of Scotland – but one bad professor or minister in one seminary or presbytery to implicate the whole church in a sinful tolerance of evil, which, once tolerated, comes to infect the whole church. The church has, as such, a duty to not tolerate bad doctrine and practice, with any failure bringing the censure of her Lord (Rev. 2:14-16, 20-23).

By Faith, the official online magazine of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), recently published a two part series of articles concerning the proposed Overtures 23 and 37, which would seek to modify the PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO) to forbid from office, amongst others, those that proclaim a homosexual identity. The article urging the rejection of the overtures was written by David Coffin, a member of the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission.
In his introduction Coffin says that “a book of church order is not designed to settle all the questions or controversies that may come up in the life of the church.” This is true, but it misses the point. We have before us a controversy regarding the essential nature of office and of who is to be allowed to hold it, i.e., a constitutional question. As the BCO is our constitution it is both appropriate and reasonable to seek to amend it accordingly to bring about a satisfactory resolution to the present constitutional controversy. He says further that “changes in our organic law should only be proposed and adopted when our regular order is shown to be deficient or has failed in some way.” The present order has failed, clearly: current law has not kept proud sinners out of office and has rather taken their side. He continues with a little theoretical reflection, praising “stability of law” as an essential item that “should not be disturbed except under necessity.” Again, this is agreed, and again he misses the point. We are under great necessity at present. Also, effectiveness of law is essential in any good government, for a weak government that cannot (or will not) enforce its own laws is doomed for displacement by one that will, even if it be only the hard rule of utter chaos.
Coffin titles his first section “The Overtures Lack Mature Consideration,” in which we see his first broad reason for opposing them. Lay aside the somewhat uncharitable intimation that they were then the result of immature consideration and note what he says in his first sentence here: “Our General Assembly’s care for our Constitutional order, with the consent of the presbyteries, should not be used to satisfy the demands of social media.” What about the demands of justice and of fidelity to our Lord and his word? This is not merely a matter of people using contemporary platforms to espouse their opinions: those opinions, however expressed, are well-grounded in an understanding of our present case and of our sin and danger in allowing office to those that ought not to hold it. He goes on with a little more waxing eloquent as to our theory of polity and says that what he calls “mature consideration” “cannot come at first glance, or in the urgency created by allegations stirring popular fears.” I confess I do not know what he means. First glance? This thing has been going on for years now, the first Revoice conference having been in 2018. As for urgency being bad, what, one wonders, does the he make of something like this?
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor. 5:1-5, ESV)
That is an example of excommunication conducted in absentia via letter, without any proceedings, and without appeal. We are not apostles, granted, but is it too much to say that the principle of decisive urgency Paul embodies – and the Corinthian church with him, it being the immediate agent of excommunication – is one we ought to emulate rather than one we should casually deprecate as “immature?”
TE Coffin continues by saying that “to attempt to remedy what is in the first instance a local problem, by a Constitutional change, is a violation” of that mature order he so values. There is much misunderstanding of the situation here. One, it is not merely a local problem, for the church is one and what happens or is tolerated in one section soon infects the others. This statement is essentially a denial of Scripture’s teaching that the church is a lump leavened by the barest amount of leaven (1 Cor. 5:6-7; Gal. 5:9). It takes – as with C.A. Briggs in the PCUSA or Robertson Smith in the Free Church of Scotland – but one bad professor or minister in one seminary or presbytery to implicate the whole church in a sinful tolerance of evil, which, once tolerated, comes to infect the whole church. The church has, as such, a duty to not tolerate bad doctrine and practice, with any failure bringing the censure of her Lord (Rev. 2:14-16, 20-23).
Two, this is, again, a constitutional question affecting the practice of ordination/investiture of office of the whole denomination. Three, it is no violation of Presbyterian polity to adopt constitutional measures to defend against an offense as heinous as the desecration of office by allowing it to be held by those who have no business there. Our polity and constitution are meant to defend against the church becoming corrupt. We are Protestants, after all, and our church has come into being because of the corruption of the medieval church wherewith our ancestors were associated. Four, Coffin’s objection makes the processes more important than the end for which such processes are constituted. Coffin would have us value order –or better: the laborious, tedious inefficiency that he calls careful and mature order – above the end of holiness and fidelity to Christ for which our system of government has been erected.
In his next sentence he says that such a suggested change as the dual adoption of Overtures 23 and 37 “subjects our government to frequent change driven, not by necessity, but by ephemeral concerns of parties in the church.” It is doubtful that this issue is going away any time soon. Cultural acceptance of sexual sin will not change soon, and perhaps not for many generations (if ever before Christ’s return). In addition, if it be ephemeral it will only be because we will move on to the question of allowing the next sin. The momentum of increasing infidelity is not ceased by compromising with it or waving our hands and sneering, “Oh, but that is just how one party in the church feels. They’ll be over that sentiment soon enough.” Today the controversy is about celibate but attracted; who can doubt but that tomorrow it will be about the question of actively practicing individuals who desire office?
Farther along he says that “the proposals now before the presbyteries could not have been subject to serious reflection and careful deliberation in the Assembly.” A light rejoinder: could anything be as vigorously deliberated as it ought when we tried to do the whole denomination’s business in about 3 days, and that after we had canceled the previous General Assembly? This is not an objection to the measures, but to our present form and practice of General Assemblies.
He continues with this argument, saying that the overtures “were taken up by the Assembly after a very long day of deliberation and debate, late in the evening, with weary commissioners showing increasing signs of impatience with prolonged consideration” and thus he believes “the Assembly was clearly not at its best in the actions taken.” This objection is weak. When lawfully convened the actions of the General Assembly are themselves lawful and authoritative, regardless of the time of day they were decided or the physical and emotional state of the messengers. A meeting is to be assumed competent unless clearly proved otherwise. Coffin continues on this line, however, and says that “the actions on the Overtures appear to put the Assembly at odds with itself in its declaration that the Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality is biblically faithful.” This too is a rather weak objection. For a legislative body to be at odds with itself is unsurprising and it proves, not that the first act was right and the second wrong, but only that legislating and administering the affairs of a large denomination is hard for weak men wracked by the noetic effects of sin.
In his next statement the TE Coffin says, “It is instructive to note that the Ad Interim Committee could have recommended BCO changes, if any were deemed warranted.” Yes and the Assembly could have either accepted or ignored such recommendations, or, as has actually been the case now, taken action on its own without regard to the committee. Coffin seems to forget that the higher body constitutes the lesser, and that in constituting a committee an Assembly lays aside none of its rights and can do as it will with the committee and its recommendations and reports. When he then continues to say that the AIC “judged the BCO to be adequate with respect to the matters under consideration,” we can safely rejoin that the whole Assembly judged otherwise, as was its right.
Coffin further opines that “this attempt to amend the BCO is futile with respect to the controversies now troubling the PCA.” This will only be so if a) the measures do not pass; and b) future courts fail to apply the overtures rigorously and faithfully when they are adopted as part of the BCO. Coffin elaborates by saying that “it is unlikely anything in these amendments, had they been in the BCO before 2018, would have changed the ruling of the SJC in 2020-12 Speck v. Missouri.”
This is a deeply concerning statement. Suppose, as is eminently probable, that the overtures pass and charges are brought against an elder to divest him of office because he boasts of his celibate homosexual identity. Now one of the presbyters sitting to hear the case has read this article, as is also probable, and as he deliberates in his own mind he remembers this statement that the overtures are not likely to change the SJC’s opinion on such matters. So rather than vote in a way (guilty) that he thinks will lead to the accused elder appealing to the SJC, he alters his vote accordingly to put the matter to rest and save what seems to be needless hassle. In such a case what Coffin will have done by publishing this article is to have poisoned the well. He is guiltless of harm so long as his position wins out. But if it does not he may well be guilty of swaying the minds of others in how they vote in future matters related to the overtures and their application.
If we move from such hypothetical (but credible) scenarios to a more general consideration of his work, it strikes an observer as odd that someone who will probably have to judge cases arising because of the adoption of these overtures would be chosen to present the case against adopting them. A further consideration of this element of Coffin’s article will be considered in the next article in this series.
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.

The church is the meeting of God’s people. What happens in it is for the benefit of God’s people. Others are welcome to look in, but what we say and do is necessarily for the believers. It is in taking the gospel out to the world that preach the good news to the perishing.

In certain circles, seeking to get unbelievers into church is seen as the highest possible goal. There is nothing better, according to some, when unbelievers come into the church and under the sound of the gospel. That, they aver, is what we ought to be about. At the risk of being deemed a contrarian, I just don’t think that is true.
What goes on inside the church is necessarily for the upbuilding of believers. The church is, after all, a gathering of believers. The world is not the church. What happens in the church is not primarily for the world. It is for believers.
This matters when it comes to our preaching. Sermons are not principally for the purpose of sharing the gospel with unbelievers. They are primarily for teaching and applying God’s Word to God’s people. Sermons are for Christians, first and foremost.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that we kick all the unbelievers out the room on Sunday. Of course it is better for unbelievers to be in the room listening to the Word preached than outside not engaging with it at all. Of course the sermon should include some gospel clarity. Not least because the gospel is not just a message we believe when we first trust in Christ, but is the very heart of everything we do as believers thereafter. But we also want some gospel clarity because – even amongst those who think they are genuine believers already – some of them won’t be. It is only clear gospel preaching that will wake such people up to the fact that they don’t actually belong to Christ.
So, on any given Sunday, I fully expect believers and unbelievers to be present in the room. I am more than happy that unbelievers are there.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Wednesday, October 18, 2023
Worship according to the Word makes a huge difference in the life of every church. This difference will be clearly seen in the health of the church and its impact on the world. May the God of all grace enable his people to experience the fullness of his blessing as they gather for proper, biblical worship in every corner of each country throughout the world.

Be sure you make it according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.(Exodus 25:40; 26:30; Hebrews 8:5)
Introduction
A certain worship service lasted for three hours. An estimated 1000 people were in attendance. During that lengthy service, no Scripture was read, no prayers for the congregation were offered, no confession of sin was made. There was no congregational singing, no preaching of a sermon, no celebration of the sacraments.
You may ask, “So what did they do for three hours?”
They had a group dancing on “stage” for 45 minutes; they received various offerings for 45 minutes; they climaxed the service with everyone coming forward and repeating over and over, “I am healed! I am healed! I am healed!” The pastor assured them that this repetitive statement constituted a “prophetic saying.” If they believed as they chanted, they would be healed.
What was the effect of this worship service on the people? In terms of experiencing the presence of God in worship, the effect was absolutely nil. Nothing happened. Certainly nothing happened positively. Negatively, worse than nothing happened.
Remember David and the ark? Remember Uzzah and his well-meant intervention? David intended to provide a model for dedicated worship before the people. Because the ark of the covenant symbolized God’s throne on earth, he determined to bring the ark to a position of prominence in Jerusalem next to his own throne. But on the way, well-meaning Uzzah steadied the ark when the oxen stumbled, and God struck Uzzah dead (2 Samuel 6:6–7).
Why? Why did the Lord take this drastic action?
Because their approach to a holy God contradicted the Lord’s own revealed way for worship, that’s why. Rather than having the Levites alone transport the ark on their shoulders by its permanently positioned carrying poles, they presumed their imaginative ways could excel the way God himself had determined for his worship (Exodus 25:10–15; Numbers 4:15; cf. 1 Chronicles 15:15). Though well-meaning, they forgot the precise directive given by God through Moses concerning worship at the time of the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness: “Be sure you make it according to the pattern shown you on the mountain” (Exodus 25:40; 26:30; cf. Hebrews 8:5).
But may we not expect greater tolerance from God when his ordained way of worship is not so perfectly respected today? After all, are not we frail human creatures now living under the greater grace of the new covenant era?
In response, should it not be noted that many more people died for worship-abuse among church members in Corinth than the single man Uzzah at the time of David’s abortive bringing up the Ark? According to the Apostle Paul, “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep in death” (1 Corinthians 11:30).
Because of improper worship practices, Paul reports that many people in the Corinthian church had gotten sick, and a number had died.
In the words of the sons of the reformers,
The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture (Westminster Confession of Faith xxi, i).
So this matter of worship is a vital part of human life in relation to the Creator of heaven and earth that must not be treated lightly. As these biblical incidents indicate, proper worship is a life-and-death matter. It brings constant refreshment for life when done properly. But worship wrongly practiced removes life from the misdirected worshipper, no matter how devoted he may be. Absolutely critical is the consistent practice of true worship according to the Word by every individual and every congregation of professing believers.
So consider seven elements for worship prescribed by the Word. As often as possible, all seven of these elements should be present in every worship service. These seven biblical elements of worship are:

Singing
Reading Scripture
Prayer
Public Testimony and Profession of Faith
Preaching
The Sacraments
Offerings

Scriptural directions for each of these worship elements deserve specific attention.
1. Singing
Not just any singing. By the models of Scripture, singing should be congregational, substantial, and edifying.
(1) Firstly, proper singing in worship should be congregational. See that six-foot elder standing with his arms folded and his lips firmly set? By determination he never sings a note. He’s in church every Sunday, but his worship is deficient. See that clammed-up congregation? They have forfeited their right and their obligation to praise the Lord by worship in song. They’re letting the choir and the worship team do all the singing. So they fail to offer the sacrifice of praise to God that they owe.
Something unique happens when a human being sings. No other activity joins the right brain to the left, the mind to the heart, the body and soul in perfect harmony like singing. That’s why Scripture specifically states, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly with all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16). This verse does not necessarily lay down the rule that all singing must follow the wording of the book of Psalms in the Old Testament, though many saints have interpreted it that way. But it does present an unequivocal command that all worshippers are expected to sing.
Many hindrances new and old can stifle the singing of the congregation. Choirs can usurp the role of congregational singing. Indeed, choirs can offer great encouragement to the soul in worship. Uplifting music often elevates a person’s spirit. David organized choirs, wrote music and lyrics, appointed appropriate instrumental accompaniment and developed antiphonal responses (1 Samuel 16:18, 23; 2 Samuel 23:1; Amos 6:5; 1 Chronicles 23:5; 2 Chronicles 29:27, 30; Ezra 3:10; Nehemiah 12:24, 36). Yet as in everything else that is human, proper application tells the tale between blessing and curse. Without realizing it a choir can easily develop into a separate group in the church with its own agenda. Sometimes the greatest of choirs are so great that they stifle any and all singing by the person in the pew, while simultaneously overshadowing the sermon of the day.
Worship teams can encourage a congregation. But they can also overpower the singing of the people so that no voice can be heard but their own. They stand in front of the congregation, blasting with their loudspeakers, electronic keyboards, drums and guitars, while the congregation remains transfixed and numbed into silence. The worship team has practiced throughout the week. Its members are familiar with the words and tunes well before worship begins. So they regularly submerge the meagre effort of the “commoner” to praise the Lord in song.
Why huge amplifiers must magnify the music coming from the keyboard, the drums and the soloists is a great mystery. These amplifiers manufacture so many decibels of sound bites that they seriously threaten deafness to people sitting up front. “Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit,” including your bodily capacity to hear (1 Corinthians 6:19)? Furthermore, what’s the use of a member of the congregation singing when he cannot even hear his own voice, much less anybody else’s? A proper worship service will promote full participation of all the people in the singing of the service.
(2) Secondly, proper singing in worship must be substantial. Mindless repetitions of musical phrases, no matter how God-glorifying they may be in themselves, quickly degenerate into vain repetitions. Would you actually stand before a dignitary such as your governor or a member of parliament and say, “Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, praise the Lord” fifty times over without interruption or explanatory comment? How can you expect to communicate with the Almighty God with that kind of repetitive rhetoric? What do you think he is? Is your God nothing more than a parrot who can absorb what you say only when you repeat it a hundred times over?
You may choose to sing hymns and choruses as well as the Psalms. But the Psalms of Scripture set the standard, the model for proper singing in worship. Consider the depth of their sin-confession, the height of their praise, the breadth of their petition for the worldwide spread of the gospel among all peoples, lands and nations. When you can match the psalms in substance and poetic beauty with your singing, then you are singing in a scriptural manner. Allow no lesser substitutes.
(3) Thirdly, proper singing must be edifying. It must build up the saints in their most holy faith. It must take them beyond where they are to higher heights of glorifying God in worship. An old Jewish proverb says, “As a man sings, so is he.” If the church sings only songs capable of being sung by children, it will remain childish in its faith. No wonder the church continues so long in its infancy. It sings like a baby, refusing to savor strong meat in its music. But among the activities of biblical worship is the responsibility to “speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Colossians 3:16). By corporate singing each believer must build up others in their faith.
Have you ever seen a man, woman or child sing with such obvious enthusiasm that you instantly experience a great burst of blessing? Right now I can think of several people who bless me whenever I see or hear them sing to the Lord in worship!
So singing is one of the essential elements of Christian, biblical worship. From the song of Moses after the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 15) to the song of David at the bringing up of the ark-throne to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 16; Psalm 96) to the song of the Lamb in Revelation (Revelation 15), God’s people have been a joyously singing community. No other religion can come close to matching it. Christianity at its core is a singing community.
It must never lose that distinctive. The Lord expects to hear us all singing when we come into his presence, for he himself is a singing God. As the prophet declares, “[The Lord] shall rejoice over you with singing” (Zephaniah 3:17).
2. Reading Scripture
Reading from the Bible obviously should be a part of every worship service. Yet it hardly ever is given its proper place as a vital part of worship these days. The preacher may read a few verses as his sermon text. But little or no place is given to the pure and purposeful reading of Scripture.
How strange! Here we have God’s inspired Word that contains everything necessary for fullness of life. Yet we give more time and attention in worship to announcements about meetings this coming week than to reading and hearing God’s own words. Does that really make sense?
Listen to these admonitions in the Bible that speak directly to the matter of the public reading of Scripture:
[Moses says]: “You shall read this law before them in their hearing. Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law. Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn to fear the Lord your God as long as you live in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess” (Deuteronomy 31:11–13).
When he commands that the people regularly read “this law” in their assemblies for worship, Moses refers to the entirety of the book of Deuteronomy. This book of the Bible would take several hours to read. Everyone in their community was required to be present throughout this reading, including men, women, children and aliens. Yet worshippers today would find it difficult to absorb even ten minutes of Scripture reading in a worship service.
A similar admonition recurs at the end of Old Testament history. God’s people are deeply involved in re-instituting their worship practices after seventy years of exile to Babylon:
Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. He read it aloud from daybreak till noon … in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law (Nehemiah 8:2–3).
Once more the whole congregation of God’s people assemble to hear the reading of the Word of God. Once more this reading involves an extended portion of Scripture, not merely a short selection. Ezra read “from daybreak to noon.” As much as six hours were taken up in nothing more and nothing less than reading the Word of God.
Of course, it would take time for a congregation to become accustomed to listening to Scripture being read for an extended period of time. Instant internet connections, coded text messages, one-line summaries of major news events do not prepare people today for listening attentively to a reading that continues “from daybreak to noon.” But even ten minutes of uninterrupted reading from Scripture in a worship service …? Fifteen minutes …?? Twenty …???
A third admonition directing the church in its reading of Scripture occurs in one of Paul’s letters:
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching (1 Timothy 4:13).
Right alongside “preaching” and “teaching” is the “public reading of Scripture.” Yet regularly in worship the preacher tends to “rush to the sermon,” to move on to the “real thing,” which he regards as his preaching. Indeed, preaching must be viewed as a focal moment in worship. But should not God also have a chance to speak? Reading Scripture (without comment) is the one moment in worship when the Lord has an opportunity to speak for himself. Yet the tendency is to minimize Scripture reading, to “get through it” and move on to what may be regarded as the more important aspects of worship. But what could be more relevant in worship than to have God himself speak directly to his assembled people?
One person memorized the whole gospel of Mark and then regularly recited the book in a single setting. His recitations were so effective that the hearers hardly noted the passage of time. Yet could not this same effect be duplicated in every reading of Scripture, even though on a smaller scale? On one occasion, a Bible teacher read a passage from the gospel of John with such meaningful inflection that no need remained for him to interpret the passage. The word of God spoke for itself.
So read Scripture in worship. Read longer passages. Read with understanding. Practice reading beforehand so you know the points needing emphasis or a change of tone in the voice. Treat the reading of Scripture as one of the most vital portions of every worship service.
3. Prayer
Prayer in worship must be with substance. Prayer in worship is not the time for parroting commonplace phrases that communicate little in terms of meaningful interaction with the Almighty. These prayers in worship should embrace all the essential elements of prayer, including praise, confession, thanksgiving, intercession, and petition. The “five-finger exercise in prayer” may aid a person in being sure all these basic elements are covered. Consider more fully these various elements of proper prayer:3
Read More
Related Posts: