Strange Lyre: The Pentecostalization of Christian Worship
What can the “Pentecostalization of worship” refer to, if we have removed the overtly charismatic acts of praying in tongues, healing, and so forth? In a series of upcoming articles, I will argue that Pentecostal worship has a matrix of distinctives that is a clear break from historic, Protestant worship, or even the worship that preceded it. These distinctives are not unique to Pentecostalism, and some of them originated before it existed. Nevertheless, they represent much of the esprit de corp of self-identified Pentecostals when it comes to worship, and certainly represent an innovation in Christian worship.
It’s hardly disputable that global Christianity has been overwhelmed and colonized by the Pentecostal and charismatic movements. After Roman Catholicism, the Christianity identified variously as charismatic, Pentecostal, Prosperity Gospel, or Latter Rain (with all its permutations and differences) makes up by far the largest percentage of what is classified as Christian. In just over 100 years since its beginnings in Azusa Street, California, it has come to dominate Christianity, and particularly the Christianity spreading in the Global South and and South-east. The growing and new-born Christianity in South America, Africa, and south-east Asia is overwhelmingly of the Pentecostal kind.
Non-Pentecostals, or cessationists as they are sometimes called, have dwindled into the minority. Very few voices have been raised to counter the theological distinctives of Pentecostalism: an emphasis on the supernatural sign gifts of the Holy Spirit, a belief in the baptism of the Spirit subsequent to salvation, and assorted novel views on healing, prosperity, and spiritual warfare. A notable exception was John MacArthur’s 2013 Strange Fire conference and subsequent book. By and large, cessationists simply accept their minority status, and defend their theology when asked.
But perhaps far more insidious has been the quiet takeover of Christian worship by Pentecostalism, even in those churches that reject the theology of continuationism. Worship forms are far more portable than doctrinal statements, and tend to insinuate themselves gradually and quietly. A popular song, emerging from Pentecostal or charismatic roots, finds a home in cessationist circles, because its theology is either orthodox and acceptable to cessationists, or sufficiently banal to fit in almost anywhere. This is not intrinsically problematic; it simply illustrates how worship forms travel across denominational lines in ways that sermons and Bible studies do not. Of course, some of the the most distinctive Pentecostal acts of worship remain out-of-bounds for cessationist churches: praying in tongues, announcing prophecies, public laying on of hands for healings or exorcisms. What arrives incognito is the Pentecostal understanding of the act of corporate worship, with its accompanying postures, approaches, and expectations.
As cessationist churches post vigilant patrols at the doctrinal boundaries, but offer open borders to charismatic songs, music, forms of prayer, and overall sentiment, a quiet transformation takes place.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Jesus Calling, “PCA, Lament and Repent!”
We failed to care sufficiently for her soul, and to exercise authority within our delineated jurisdiction for the preservation and promulgation of the true gospel and true religion. It cannot be underlined too boldly: criticism of Sarah Young or commiseration because of her actual aims and intentions– all of it bundled together pales to the guilt of the PCA. We are 45 million copies in, and the math adds up against our vows, our fidelity and our titular orthodoxy.
The title of this essay is provocative, especially styled as a quote from Jesus speaking today. The trope is not uncommon, often used for a poignant paraphrase of a Scripture passage, or for an urgent distillation of an application of Scripture. It is not necessarily equivalent to the hackneyed, “the Lord told me,” as a short-hand for God given wisdom. It is not the hubris of uttering prophetic claims as God’s instruction and direction. If a minister employs this trope in a sermon, the authority is not objectionable. If all else is in order, per ordinary means, this kind of “red letter” is in keeping with Westminster Shorter Catechism #89.
Question: How is the word made effectual to salvation?
Answer: The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.
What if the preacher impersonated the incarnate Christ, start to finish? This is a thought experiment. What if it was all red letters? If he spoke not as a herald but as the one sitting at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, with the verisimilitude of a method actor? If he said, “I know your thoughts, your fears, your inward stumbles and most hidden doubts, for I made your heart and cherish it with divine covenantal attention”– then, what would you make of his 30 minute sermon?
Would theological accuracy at the bottom be sufficient to place you at ease? Perhaps you would be at ease, if he was modest and forthright outside the pulpit, saying: “Of course I am not Jesus, that is blasphemous; but I am speaking Jesus’ words which have been given to me for the church.” What if his congregation expressed great satisfaction, if they credited this preaching with restoring hope and transforming lives?
A great deal of discussion would surely ensue. On the face of it, the man should be admonished to cut it out. Our order is patient, and there might be a series of admonitions. Apart from fundamentally changing his preaching, I hope there would be a trial and conviction and defrocking. I assume a lot in these expectations. Would it be more significant if millions were downloading his sermons like fan-fiction for “The Chosen” series?
“Jesus Calling: Enjoying Peace in His Presence,” by Sarah Young is a wicked book. It is an influential book. The influence of this wickedness must be laid at the feet of the Presbyterian Church in America. The PCA must lament and repent. It may be rejoined that I assume too much in these assertions, and my subsequent exposition may be set aside as shallow, narrow and censorious. I earnestly hope not.
Wicked
The book provides 365 unbroken days of direct speech from Jesus. It impersonates. It counterfeits. It does not claim to be the inerrant and infallible words of the canon, merely the words of Jesus by which one can enjoy the pacific benefits of communing with Him.
“Jesus Calling resonates with men and women. Written as if Jesus Himself is speaking directly to you, Jesus Calling invites you to experience peace in the presence of the Savior who is always with you.“
Despite the meek and modest buttressing of the book’s advertising, that is profound arrogance. It dishonors Jesus by presuming to speak, not only for, but as him– in the single most intimate setting on earth, private worship. To express the outrage and stray near the disgust it deserves: it is cuckolding. Jesus’ evil, fraternal twin– not identical– stole his phone and is intimately texting with His bride. It’s like Esau alienating the affections of Rachel.
Warming Up to “Wicked”
My conscience was pricked in December, when by happenstance I encountered a 2012 negative review of the book by Kathy Keller from “The Redeemer Report.” Justin Taylor posted a long quote from it without elaboration at The Gospel Coalition. Six months earlier he had similarly posted a quote from Michael Horton’s negative evaluation. (The entire Horton piece is available here.) Both Keller and Horton anchor their multi-faceted criticisms in the doctrine of Scripture’s Sufficiency. While that is significant, that doctrine is not what provokes my distress with the book.
You likely know some warm Christians who delight in Jesus Calling. Imagine their acute graciousness if they actually met that legalistic man from the internet. My conclusion about the book is harsh, and arises from attention which I have not yet seen given to the book. Imagine those warm Christians, over coffee, hearing middle-of-the-PCA-road Kathy Keller say what she wrote (my emphasis):
. . . those words are attributed directly to Jesus (and they don’t sound like anything else he has ever said), then they have to be received on the same level as Scripture, or she has put her own thoughts into the mouth Jesus.
The She is Sarah Young. The thoughts are her own. The mouth is (not) Jesus. Earnest believers might respond protectively for the good name and inspiring example of She. Piety enriched by her own thoughts might take offense at denigration of a transforming book– like Sproul or Packer, but of uncommon practical value. Fans of the book likely are satisfied with Young’s clear denial: it’s not Scripture. They consider the this-is-Jesus format as just very effective red-lettering. The mouth Jesus likely just sounds uncharitable to them.
Tim Challies might pull up a chair to that coffee conversation. He reviewed the book in 2011, concluding: “I see no reason that I would ever recommend this book.” In 2015 he thought it wise to revisit it with “Ten Serious Problems with Jesus Calling.” Imagine him chiming in to the conversation with the final words of his second post:
The point is clear: Jesus Calling is a book built upon a faulty premise and in that way a book that is dangerous and unworthy of our attention or affirmation. The great tragedy is that it is leading people away from God’s means of grace that are so sweet and so satisfying, if only we will accept and embrace them.
Kindling Up a Burning Fire
I doubt my thought-experiment conversation would even get heated, so much as murky and frustrating. I don’t think advocates of the book understand– nor has Keller or Horton or Challies actually substantiated– why “red-lettering” in this instance ought to be anathema. The critics reject Jesus Calling, because Scripture is sufficient for communion, spiritual experience and intimate fellowship with God. They hammer with sufficiency, but this is not about the Bible. Challies strikes most truly at the tragedy by invoking the means of grace.
The book mimics the means of grace. It is used for worship. Jesus Calling is an idol. That is the topic of conversation. Yes, these dear folks are Christians. Yes, they are idolaters. They are not just psychological, disordered-affections, every-christian-an-idol factory idolaters. They are 2nd Commandment, God-hates-what-you-are-doing-with-that-thing idolaters. He hates your lover, and he hates your tristing with it. Stop. Hard. You need to throw it in the fire and seek him as he promises. Hot coffee, hot conversation, hot mess.
Having mentioned the good name of Sarah Young above, an ugly line of reflection ought to be squelched emphatically. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God (Romans 14:10). Sarah Young passed in 2023. She is beyond our censure, and ought to receive no personal dishonor or rubber-necking scrutiny. No memes. She endeavored for the glory of Christ, trying to match the grace she knew. Her repentance is done. Leave her alone.
The book, however, has not passed away, quite the contrary.
Influential
Other than Kathy Keller, the cited critics hold no responsible roll in the PCA. In terse form, unlike the author Sarah Young, they have never taken vows as members or officers. While they share Reformed convictions with the PCA, they did not publish warnings because of any direct connection to Jesus Calling. They are active in conservative evangelicalism beyond the PCA. They responded to the book’s influence. Challies’ return to warn more strongly 4 years later is striking. What more could he do, as he is only an observer of that growing influence?
Another 8 years of influence have waxed. Sales of Jesus Calling have surpassed 45 million copies. Even leaning back from a press release, that is 10% of the U.S. population. That is more than 100 times the membership of the PCA. As things happen with mission and marketing and money, the book has been expanded into a brand. There is a children’s version, and other iterations. There is a television series. And, yes, there is an app.
But these are numbers and infrastructure. What is the influence that draws the word “tragedy” from even-handed Tim Challies? What is the content flowing from all this industry? It is well epitomized by the host of the T.V. series’ second season:
“I know how much Jesus Calling has meant to me in my own faith walk, and I’m thrilled to share stories from others who have seen their lives changed and hope restored through this book.”
I don’t know the aggregate of Tim Keller’s book sales. D. James Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion had enormous reach, but 45 million? Numbers this large exceed any scale of familiarity. I doubted that any other religious publication from within the PCA could have similar publication numbers. My imagination was meager. According to how the publication industry sorts and counts, Jesus Calling made Sarah Young “the bestselling Christian author of all time.” It is incontrovertible: Jesus Calling is the most influential PCA book in our first 50 years.
The significant influence is not numbers but people. I’m an optimist– it’s a resurrection thing. I suspect that there are many, many true Christians believing gruel and eating folly. Didn’t it ever occur to you that there is something a lot like the Prosperity Gospel that savy and discerning people (like us) would swallow hook, line and comfort? Or, optimism errs and predominately the lost are being deceived about Jesus by Jesus Calling. It’s influential on the scale of double digit millions– millions of people.
Laid at the Feet of the Presbyterian Church in America
Thomas Nelson publishes the book, manages the brand and reaps the profits, but it is the PCA that failed. Having received pastoral responsibility for Sarah Young, any private spiritual maladies and public religious transgressions were the responsibility of the PCA. The wicked influence upon the church and world– far greater than one woman could stumble into– is to be blamed on the PCA.
We failed to care sufficiently for her soul, and to exercise authority within our delineated jurisdiction for the preservation and promulgation of the true gospel and true religion.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Unconditional Election & Shepherding
Unconditional election is a reminder that just as surely as God elected and then saved a Christian, He will bring about their conformity into the image of Jesus Christ by completing the good work He began in them (Phil. 1:6). This frees me to preach expository sermons, trusting that the Lord can and will take my feeble efforts and use them to edify, strengthen, and conform the saints into the image of Christ. The edification of the elect is not an abstract possibility, but a definite reality. The chain of salvation is forever and always an unbroken chain.
Unconditional election, when rightly understood, is one of the most freeing doctrines for the under shepherd to embrace and one of the most assuring doctrines for the Christian to hold. It is beautiful because it reveals the beauty of our God whose grace is sovereign and whose mercies are new every morning. It reveals the immense power of a Father who has lovingly determined to give a certain number of sinners to His Son, Jesus, as an eternal gift (John 6:37). It proves that the Church is never in danger of failing, but always being built up as God has intended (Eph. 1:3-14, 2:19-22). Rightly understood, unconditional election is a powerful testimony unto the goodness of God and a tool for missions and evangelism. But what happens when it is ignored?
When Unconditional Election is Neglected
In my own experience, Calvinism is typically rejected because the rejecter cannot reconcile election with the free offer of the gospel. However, the result of rejecting Calvinism, or unconditional election, is usually detrimental to the pastor and his congregation.
I, unfortunately, write from experience. When I first started preaching, I was still young – both physically and theologically. I was sixteen years old and had grown up in Holiness circles which held firmly to a system of works-based-righteousness. Underneath this framework, I had been taught that it was basically up to sinners to save themselves through their own efforts and that salvation had to be maintained through a great deal of effort. One slip up, I had been taught, was enough to cast the saint away from Jesus. The Christian life became a game of hide and seek, where salvation was constantly lost and had to be found again.
The impact of this teaching upon my preaching at the time was obvious enough. I regularly preached doom and gloom sermons, warning of the wrath and judgment of God to come, but without any true lasting hope for the sinner; after all, salvation was likely to only be temporary until the next sin was committed. Similarly, I carried a very unnatural burden upon myself. I knew that Heaven and Hell were real destinations, and I even understood (at least fundamentally) that the gospel was the only real hope for sinners, but I thought the salvation of sinners literally depended on me preaching well.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Standing Judicial Commission Just Violated the PCA Constitution and Standards—Again.
Written by J. Lance Acree |
Sunday, June 12, 2022
The Bible I read gives a strong impression that the King and Head of the Church looks none too kindly on this kind of brazen rebellion—especially when perpetrated by those who claim to be His shepherds. “It belongs to His Majesty,” reads the BCO Preface, “from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church…”A funny thing happened on the way to prodding my Presbytery to explain why it approved the ordination of pedophiles and homosexuals as pastors.
I am not making this up.
Not to bury the lede, I discovered that the highest court in this supposedly conservative denomination—the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the General Assembly—has been routinely violating the PCA Constitution and its Standards, for nearly three decades.
This is a bold and unusual claim to make. But relatively few people in the PCA have been on the strange journey that reveals this bizarre phenomenon. Not everyone travels to Australia, and accordingly, few see a black swan in the wild, or a mammal that lays eggs. But we’re not in Australia just yet; I am getting ahead of myself. Every journey, no matter how strange, needs a starting point. So let me follow the advice of Vizzini (The Princess Bride) and “go back to the beginning.”
When your correspondent was a college student (getting invaluable training from The Navigators™ college ministry), close at hand there were PCA giants roaming the earth: Frank Barker Jr. and Peter Doyle. With my Navigator buddies I studied Romans chapter by chapter, and in the process adopted the reformed perspective—long before I found out there was a word for it. Since then, I have served as an ordained Ruling Elder (RE) in the PCA for well over 30 years. As we moved about the country courtesy of the U.S. Air Force, my wife and I transferred our membership among a string of PCA churches in Arkansas, Ohio, South Carolina, Maryland and Tennessee. I have served on three church Sessions in three different states; at the Presbytery level, on two committees and a judicial commission; and at General Assembly (GA) as a commissioner from my church.
In short, I am about as loyal as one can reasonable be to the Presbyterian form of government[i] in general and to the PCA’s original philosophy of ministry in particular. For more than three decades, I have explored both the beautiful and the ugly side of the PCA. I still enjoy serving the people God loves so lavishly in this denomination.
My first experience with the ugly side of the PCA occurred while serving on a judicial commission of Chesapeake Presbytery. As a commissioner going through meeting minutes, I had discovered that a Session had ruled that a Deacon and his wife (neither of whom had I met) could not host in their home a woman in distress. Now, no PCA Session has authority over who can or can’t be hosted in a particular home. This kind of ruling is called “binding the conscience” in the PCA, and it is prohibited in explicit terms[ii]; it means this Session usurped authority no church court possesses[iii]. Although this flawed ruling was well-documented—a “clean kill,” so to speak—my fellow commissioners proceeded to ignore the finding. They offered no explanation; then they voted to keep this finding out of the report. I felt this was a dereliction of our duty to the Deacon if not to the entire Presbytery that commissioned us.
The PCA’s Book of Church Order (BCO), a component of its Constitution, offers a formal way to raise such issues and get them addressed: the formal complaint (BCO 43). When I filed complaints about this dereliction of duty with the Presbytery, the Moderator responded by claiming that since I was not a member of the Presbytery I did not have grounds for filing a complaint. He cited no reference for this assertion, nor did he offer any supporting rationale or inference chain[iv]. His fiat ruling was sustained by majority vote—my first experience with what I will call The Great Presbytery Smackdown, a crude kind of internal cancel culture unique to the PCA. It’s a kind of ad hominem assault that leverages a widespread confusion about authority—a confusion we will explore in this article. If you have not seen one in person, a Smackdown looks more like something drawn from Rules for Radicals or The Prince[v] than from anything Christ Jesus said.[vi] Later I appealed my complaints to the SJC, who found that I “certainly had the right to file a complaint” but did not direct any specific corrective action for Chesapeake Presbytery.[vii]
More recently, Tennessee Valley Presbytery approved a licensure candidate who, during his oral examination, explicitly approved the ordination of homosexuals and pedophiles as pastors (Teaching Elders). Licensure is the formal authorization to preach. As one who suspected an effort to syncretize pagan “social justice” religious dogma[viii] with Christianity or practice a kind of selective antinomianism, I had a question: How does the Presbytery make this position fit with the Scriptures on the subject? As a church member within the geographical jurisdiction of this Presbytery I filed a one-page complaint.[ix]
At the time I was a PCA church member but not elected and installed on a Session, and so could not have served as a commissioner from my church. But I made sure to attend the next Presbytery meeting as a visitor; I wanted to be available either to answer questions from the floor or meet with a committee. This was my first interaction with this particular Presbytery, and I was curious whether they would refer the complaint to committee or conduct an open discussion on the issues I raised.
Fat chance. The first announcement of the complaint as an item on the agenda was followed, not by a motion to refer to committee, but a brief and baldly stated motion: “to deny the complaint.” In what passed for “discussion”, not one speaker discussed any point in the substance of the complaint, nor asked that the complaint be read. From previous experience I recognized the pattern; an imminent Smackdown was in the works.
The sole, single and solitary argument raised (in support of the Smackdown motion) was that the complaint was based on hearsay. The speaker (a Teaching Elder) argued that as I was not present when the Presbytery voted to approve the candidate espousing homosexual and pedophile pastors, the complaint was just hearsay. Despite the fact that such an argument is a logical fallacy[x] employing a tactfully hidden but patently false premise (and as such is prohibited by God in the Scriptures[xi]), no one pointed out its illegitimate nature. No other argument was offered. True to form, the now-familiar Presbytery Smackdown ran its predictable course. Alinsky and Machiavelli would have been proud: no Golden Rule practiced here.
The message was clear: You’re a nice guy, Mr. Acree, but Tennessee Valley Presbytery does not care to answer sticky questions that would likely expose antinomianism or a creeping syncretism of a pagan dogma with Christianity, thank you very much. We’re done with you. And the horse you rode in on.
Later I was informed by the Stated Clerk via email that the Presbytery had consulted with Dr. Roy L. Taylor on this matter of Presbyterian polity. The Stated Clerk offered an attempt at a justification for the Smackdown:
Please also note, that after consultation with the General Assembly’s Stated Clerk Emeritus, Dr. Roy Taylor, the Presbytery was advised that according to BCO 43-1 and 13-1 only members (TEs) and elected ruling elders sent as commissioners to Presbytery may file a complaint against an action of Presbytery. The court of original jurisdiction for a church member is the Session, not the Presbytery. Despite this, the Presbytery did read and discuss the content of your complaint at the most immediate stated meeting and approved a motion to deny your complaint.
While I am sure that individual members of Presbytery may have read and discussed the complaint in whatever informal groups they may care to cluster in, I am sure also that Tennessee Valley Presbytery—the formal deliberative body defined by the term “Presbytery”—never discussed the content of my complaint in any way[xii] at “the most immediate meeting.” I know this with absolute certainty because all the through their brute force Smackdown, I was sitting there with them all, listening carefully. I would have noticed. My friends and fellow Elders from my church, who were also there, would have noticed. The Stated Clerk’s assertion is demonstrably false, and so is a violation of the PCA Standards. This attempt at an explanation also includes a compound fallacy (about original jurisdiction) that we will examine in detail later in this article. But let’s put that aside—there are much bigger fish to fry.
It will help to review some important concepts. Jurisdiction is usually a well-understood concept in the United States; the term has a plain meaning that originates as early as Exodus 18, and is widely used in civil government. In the hierarchy of ecclesiastical courts that constitute the PCA, each component court is given primacy of governance over its particular jurisdiction, but the court one step up also has jurisdiction in a secondary way that might be called oversight. More specifically, a church Session has primary governance (jurisdiction) over its congregation, but the Session operates within the jurisdiction of Presbytery; likewise, a Presbytery has jurisdiction over a geographic area, but operates within the jurisdiction of the General Assembly (and its Standing Judicial Commission).
Thus, the various jurisdictions are nested in a hierarchy. The churches within the geographic bounds of a Presbytery A—its constituent churches—are held accountable to the Presbytery because their governance oversight role has been reserved for Presbytery A. That means Presbytery B can’t assert its authority over the churches in the jurisdiction of Presbytery A; in the same way, Presbytery A can’t try to govern all the other Presbyteries because that is the role reserved solely for General Assembly. But it also means that General Assembly would not normally interfere directly with Presbytery A’s governance of its constituent churches; similarly, Presbytery A would not normally interfere with a church Session’s governance of its congregation.
This plain meaning is replicated in the United States Constitution: New York’s state government can’t try to govern a town in New Jersey; and New Jersey can’t try to govern all the 50 states the way the Federal government does. And the Federal government can’t tell New Jersey to adjust their state income tax.
When a case that originated within the jurisdiction of a lower court is appealed to a higher court, the higher court is described as having appellate jurisdiction; it has the right to hear the appeal. But in unusual circumstances, a superior court may, temporarily but properly, take to itself the jurisdiction that would normally belong to an inferior court. For example, if Presbytery A has been found to have severely mismanaged a case within its jurisdiction, the SJC may properly take original jurisdiction—i.e., take the case away from Presbytery A and retry that case at the higher (SJC) level—as if the SJC had the normal jurisdiction at the moment the case originated. And a Presbytery can in similar fashion take original jurisdiction from one of its constituent church courts (a Session).
These processes are stipulated in the PCA Constitution, which includes the Book of Church Order (BCO). In case you aren’t familiar with the BCO, you can easily see it at https://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BCO-2019-with-bookmarks-for-website-1.pdf. The Preface to the BCO is well worth reading. To save you time looking up what the Stated Clerk referred me to, here is BCO paragraph 43-1 in full:
43-1. A complaint is a written representation made against some act or decision of a court of the Church. It is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject, except that no complaint is allowable in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending.
As you can see, there is no mention of a requirement to be a commissioner or a Teaching Elder in this text; those terms are conspicuously absent. Please note for later that “jurisdiction” appears in the context of “any communing member”; very different from the SJC’s restriction to “commissioners or Teaching Elders”. The only possible way to twist this wording into what the Stated Clerk sent me is to alter the meaning of “jurisdiction”, or by using some logic chain or extended syllogism. That may be why he included a statement about “original jurisdiction.” We will return to these two later. But lest we forget, the Stated Clerk also referenced BCO 13-1, which appears in a chapter entitled The Presbytery:
13-1. The Presbytery consists of all the teaching elders and churches within its bounds that have been accepted by the Presbytery. When the Presbytery meets as a court it shall comprise all teaching elders and ruling elders as elected by their Session. Each congregation is entitled to two (2) ruling elder representatives for the first 350 communing members or fraction thereof, and one additional ruling elder for each additional 500 communing members or fraction thereof.
As with 43-1, you can see that BCO 13-1 contains no requirement to be a commissioner or a Teaching Elder to have standing within in the jurisdiction of a Presbytery.
But the Stated Clerk mentioned “original jurisdiction”; what logic would make him do that, when neither of the texts in the BCO he referenced use this phrase? One possibility is that he and others are equivocating, by implying that the use of “jurisdiction” in 43-1 is the semantic equivalent of “original jurisdiction”. But confounding “jurisdiction” and “original jurisdiction” would result in some serious confusion if for consistency we tried to use the same confounding in other parts of the BCO that use these terms. This equivocation fallacy is easily exposed by reductio ad absurdum.
As we have seen, the concept of jurisdiction is rather critical to the Presbyterian form of government, whether liberal or conservative, civil or ecclesiastic. Accordingly, the term appears no less than 77 times in the BCO. We have seen that it has two distinct qualifiers (original; appellate) added to distinguish which direction one is moving (under special circumstances) among the arrangement of court jurisdictions. This is necessary because the jurisdictions of the various courts nest together in a hierarchical order. It should be no surprise that two whole chapters are devoted to the concept (Chapters 11 and 46)—which chapters are curiously missing from the Stated Clerk’s attempt at an explanation. Surely, if their view has support anywhere in the BCO at all, something in these key chapters should support their position. But alas, no mention of either chapter 11 or 46. Just thin air.
Another possibility is that they have inserted a hidden qualifier (in this case, “original”) that does not appear in the text—something I am sure in seminary they were all taught not to do. I never went to seminary, but even I learned this is illegitimate. The more subtle form is called eisegesis, and it means injecting a meaning into the text that is not actually there, by verbal sleight of hand. It is a kind of dealing falsely—with the author of the text, with the intended audience, etc.—and that is prohibited by God for His people, as we have seen earlier. It’s a clear violation of the PCA Standards.
Without explicit mention in BCO texts for a foundation, there is another possibility: that there exists some logic chain or extended syllogism that supports their critical idea. To do that, it would have to start with authoritative BCO excerpts, and then proceed “by good and necessary inference” (i.e., sound logic that has no other possible alternative) to end up with their final argument. Each step in the logic chain would have to be clearly stated and must logically follow from the preceding statements. The final line in the chain would have to be something like “Therefore, complaints against actions of Presbytery can only be filed by either Teaching Elders who are members of that Presbytery, or by Ruling Elders commissioned to attend the meeting in which the action was completed.”
You may have noticed that their explanation offered no such logic chain. I noticed. And I suspect that many fathers and mothers who attend PCA churches in the jurisdiction of Tennessee Valley Presbytery would like to know that in the near future their children may soon be exposed to pedophiles and homosexuals wearing the (formerly) trusted title of PCA pastor. So in 2021 I filed an appeal of my complaint with the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. Such an appeal goes to “the higher court”, which in this case is also the highest court of the PCA, the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the General Assembly. After a bit of introduction and background for context, I explained to the SJC the process errors and logical fallacy committed by my Presbytery.
And now we come to the strange episode in which the Standing Judicial Commission violates the PCA Constitution and Standards, not to mention the vows of ordination—not just once, but repeatedly. After nearly a year, the SJC responded to my appeal, and minus the voting of the particular Officers of the Commission, it reads as follows:
This case began as an attempt by a Ruling Elder to file a BCO 43-1 Complaint with Presbytery as the original court, even though he was not a commissioner at the Presbytery meeting where the action was taken. The Officers reviewed the Complaint and recommended the Case be found Administratively Out of Order. (OMSJC 9.1.a) The Officers determined that the Case could not be put in order (OMSJC 9.2), because the Complainant was not identified in the roster of Ruling Elder Commissioners at the April 2021 meeting of the Presbytery in which the action was taken from which his Complaint arises. The Presbytery Clerk confirmed he was not a commissioner at that meeting. The Officers notified RE Acree that they were making this recommendation to the SJC. Therefore, the SJC rules the Complainant did not have standing to file a BCO 43-1 complaint with Presbytery. Presbytery should have also found his Complaint out of order and declined to adjudicate at its July 2021 meeting. See similar SJC rulings on standing in:
Case 2020-13, Benyola v. Central Florida, (M48GA, 2021, p. 817),Case 2020-01, Benyola v. Central Florida (M48GA, 2021, p. 801),Case 2012-08, RE Warren Jackson v. Northwest Georgia (M43GA, 2015, p. 568),Case 2012-06, Deacon Don Bethel v. Southeast Alabama (M41GA, 2013, p. 614), andCase 92-9b, Mr. Overman v. Eastern Carolina (M21GA, 1993, p. 223).
In reviewing the SJC ruling above, a couple of things should stand out. First, the entire SJC ruling hinges on just one critical idea: that Ruling Elders cannot complain about an action of Presbytery unless they are commissioned by their Session to attend the particular meeting when that action occurred. The key term, used twice in the SJC ruling, is “standing.” How the SJC rationally supports this position on “standing,” which as we have seen earlier has no explicit basis in the BCO, the SJC failed to provide. It is simply asserted here without support, floating on nothing.
Second, the SJC seems to be astonished and possibly annoyed at the failure of Tennessee Valley Presbytery to administratively adjudicate my complaint as Out of Order based on the SJC’s critical idea. It appears that the SJC has assumed that every Presbytery in the PCA has been officially informed about the SJC’s restriction on standing. Yet, the SJC provides no reference to any widely publicized and GA-authorized document in which a Presbytery might find an official description of this novel restriction.
Third, the only clue as to where some authoritative basis and explanation for this critical idea might be found is in the list of “similar SJC rulings on standing”. This list starts with a case in 2013 and works its way back to the minutes (page 223) of the 21st GA meeting in 1993, so it seems reasonable to expect to find an explicit motion, or at least a logic chain recorded in the 1993 minutes. Those minutes are found here: Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (pcahistory.org).
A review of the 21st GA Minutes shows 82 instances of “jurisdiction” (including “jurisdictional” etc.)—but not one instance redefining “jurisdiction” as hinging on meeting attendance as a commissioner. The term “standing” occurs 85 times, and one of these instances is the case cited by the SJC above (92-9b, pages 223-224). As such it appears to be the foundational case for the entire string of “similar SJC rulings” between 1993 and the present. The key paragraph in this allegedly foundational SJC ruling is:
92-9b was found not in order. Recommendation to the full Commission: that 92-9b be found not in order because of lack of standing since the complainant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Eastern Carolina Presbytery (BCO 43-1; MSJC 6.2).
That’s it. No supporting rationale, just an assertion connecting lack of standing to some unnamed aspect of jurisdiction, presumably using some logic—but logic that is held out of view. I have looked at each of the other four cases on the SJC list of “similar rulings” as they are recorded in GA minutes; none offer anything better than this one.
As we have seen earlier, without indulging in an illegitimate eisegesis or fallacy of equivocation, the first reference (BCO 43-1) cannot logically be construed as an explicit and authoritative basis for the critical idea. That leaves “MSJC 6.2” as a possible source document.
Right. I think we can agree that an Operating Manual, which is usually just a collection of procedures, is not a sufficiently authoritative source for a governing principle wherein “jurisdiction” and “standing” are significantly altered from their plain meaning in the BCO texts. More significantly, the current SJC, in their ruling on my complaint appeal, did not cite a single paragraph in the current operating manual (the OMSJC). Taken together, these two points indicate that we can discard the citation of “MSJC 6.2” as a possible authoritative source document for the critical idea; it’s clearly irrelevant.
But let’s be generous. Perhaps the SJC’s 1993 ruling on case 92-9b was based on a motion approved by GA the previous year. A review of the previous GA meeting minutes (in 1992) shows 91 instances of “standing.” Not a single instance restricts standing with regard to filing a complaint. There are 62 instances of “jurisdiction.” Again, not a single instance restricts standing with regard to filing a complaint. As I stated earlier, I have read the GA minutes for each of the “similar rulings” on the list they provided and found nothing of substance—no explicit authorization in the BCO or motions of the GA, and no logic chains. But you don’t have to take my word for it; you can download the pdf files and use the search function yourself.
But let’s not give up; perhaps the Office of the Stated Clerk can help us locate some rationale in the form of a logic chain, perhaps in a PCA position paper. In response to my subsequent inquiries with the Office of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Dr. Roy L. Taylor offered this:
“To summarize my logic.BCO 15-4 and 15-5 are part of the PCA Constitution.
The process of amending the BCO was followed by the General Assembly, the approval of two-thirds of Presbyteries, and a subsequent General Assembly in accordance with BCO 26-2.
Because BCO 15-4 and 15-5 are now part of the PCA Constitution, I do not need to provide you with motions adopted by the General Assembly or additional rationale.”That’s it. Two paragraphs in the BCO. In case you’re wondering, BCO 15-4 starts this way:
15-4. The General Assembly shall elect a Standing Judicial Commission to which it shall commit all matters governed by the Rules of Discipline, except for the annual review of Presbytery records, which may come before the Assembly. This commission shall consist of twenty-four…
BCO 15-5 continues in the same vein, just procedures. In other words, BCO 15-4 and BCO 15-5 are descriptions of procedure, not descriptions or restrictions on standing or jurisdiction. Nowhere in this relatively short two-paragraph section will you find the slightest reference to the SJC’s critical idea. Nor will you find authorization deputed to the SJC to ignore the plain meaning or modify foundational definitions (such as “standing” and “jurisdiction”) so crucial to the presbyterian form of government. Recall that the SJC did not cite either of these paragraphs as a source in their ruling.
To summarize thus far, your correspondent found no explicit GA direction or authorization to restrict standing or modify “jurisdiction”, nor did he find any “good and necessary inference” by which such a restriction might be deduced from GA-approved motions. The SJC’s critical idea appears only in its rulings, without authoritative foundation; it floats without anchor on nothing but thin air.
That leaves one remaining possibility, as bizarre as it may seem: the SJC usurped legislative authority.[xiii] The Officers surreptitiously ignored the plain meaning of “jurisdiction” in the BCO, and without any proper authorization they made up a completely new restriction on foundational concepts (standing; jurisdiction), fabricated out of thin air, and substituted it for the plain meaning. Modifying two foundational definitions is a role restricted to legislative authority—the GA itself. In case you’re wondering, at no point in its history has the GA deputized its SJC to act with legislative authority; if the GA had, no one would bother to attend GA, because the SJC would be in complete charge.
Any review of legislation reveals that it is chock full of definitions—legal definitions—to be used by attorneys and judges as they apply the force of enacted law to particular cases. Legislators routinely fabricate definitions for terms like Sole Proprietorship and Limited Liability Corporation; if they didn’t no one would be able to understand what they were talking about, much less how to apply their laws once enacted. The Book of Church Order is another example of legislation, with definitions embedded throughout. These legislative definitions supply us with the plain meaning of the terms.
An illustration might help. If a civil judge, in the process of adjudicating a case involving a Sole Proprietorship or a Limited Liability Corporation, modified the definition of either of these terms with his own restriction, say to exclude blacks or Hispanics, or to include only the owners of pickup trucks, we know with crystal clarity and absolute certainty that this judge has ignored the plain meaning of the legal text. In modifying a definition in the legislation he has “legislated from the bench” (usurped legislative authority). He has committed a professional foul for which he may properly be impeached.
Since the GA officially deputized the SCJ with judicial authority only, usurping legislative authority is a clear violation of the PCA Constitution and Standards, not to mention a violation of the respective Officer’s oaths of ordination[xiv]. Their eisegesis on the Book of Church Order, among other logical fallacies that comprise a deceptive attempt to give these rulings an appearance of legitimacy, is also a violation of God’s explicit commands. In short, all of the cited list of SJC rulings that employ the SJC-fabricated restriction are illegitimate, and the current SJC Officers, by continuing an illegitimate practice (as they did with my appeal), are equally as guilty as the SJC was in 1993 of violating both the Constitution and the Standards.
Analysis
I think it’s obvious that the Presbytery Smackdown practice is the natural result of the unconstitutional SJC Smackdown practice that began in 1993. One large-scale negative effect is to discourage PCA Elders from working through issues in their own Presbytery with careful, diligent statesmanship. The threat of a Smackdown is too great to invest the effort. The Smackdown means that instead of getting proper discussion in a Presbytery, critical issues get polarized in unofficial caucuses such as the Gospel Reformation Network and the National Partnership. The PCA loses to a significant degree the great benefit of an entire intermediate level of polity discourse. Another effect is to discourage Presbyterian officers from learning the arduous but noble work of statesmanship in His Church; brute force thuggery precludes the fine art of statecraft.
Now I know what you’re thinking: “Presbyterians love committees, so surely there is some committee of the GA whose job it is to catch these things.” If there is, it would probably be the Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB). But you have to realize that, aside from the occasional Presbytery Smackdown, the culture of Southern Church-ianity[xv] is passive. Many don’t like confrontation in any form. Many church officers can’t conceive that God routinely uses unpleasant things like conflict to construct His transcendent good for the benefit of His Beloved. Many more do not know how to file a complaint. In practice, that means that those who make this journey, the people with the temerity to file a complaint against a whole Presbytery will face a steep climb and possibly social castigation, labelled as “contentious” or “angry”.
Then there is the art and science of writing up a sound complaint and a proper appeal; few are trained or equipped with these skills of statecraft. Such intrepid statesmen of deep conviction and skill are few and far between, and so this kind of complaint—and its corresponding illegitimate SJC response—are relatively rare. So the CCB may be completely unaware of this brazen, if intermittent, arrogation of legislative power, simply because it might only rarely (if ever) come to their attention.
I have made some striking charges against the SJC and my Presbytery in this article, and I am fully prepared to face an ecclesiastic court on countercharges of libel.[xvi] Consider this public rebuke[xvii] an open invitation for any of the SJC Officers and various Stated Clerks I mentioned to respond in an equally public forum. I am concerned for the welfare of my fellow officers, but more for the future welfare of children in Tennessee Valley Presbytery. I don’t think it wise to allow any surreptitious monkeying around with foundational concepts like jurisdiction or standing. Especially when used to beat down an honest question from a fellow servant of Christ. But I really don’t think it wise to expose minors and young adults to male homosexuals and pedophiles who are awarded a title of public trust. The Boy Scouts went this way. So did the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t think it wise, either for Sessions or Presbyteries or Standing Commissions, to traffic in false premises and logical fallacies.
o “Let us not fear the opposition of men; every great movement in the Church from Paul down to modern times has been criticized on the ground that it promoted censoriousness and intolerance and disputing. Of course the gospel of Christ, in a world of sin and doubt will cause disputing; and if does not cause disputing and arouse bitter opposition, that is a fairly sure sign that it is not being faithfully proclaimed.”
o “In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.”
o “It is impossible to be a true soldier of Jesus Christ and not fight.”
— John Gresham Machen
The Bible I read gives a strong impression that the King and Head of the Church[xviii] looks none too kindly on this kind of brazen rebellion—especially when perpetrated by those who claim to be His shepherds. “It belongs to His Majesty,” reads the BCO Preface, “from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church…” His Majesty has spoken rather bluntly about His views, and on several occasions. His descriptions of the outcome for the perpetrators are always memorable, terse and stark. Not to mention unpleasant.
But perhaps my fellow PCA Elders have forgotten, among other important things like their ordination vows, that It belongs to His Majesty. Perhaps they have forgotten that His Majesty is coming back. That when He does come back He will judge every word.
Until He appears, I predict that some PCA Ruling Elders will be dodging accountability with “Hey, I did not attend the meeting in question as a commissioner, so according to the PCA I’m not under your jurisdiction.” And I predict that parents and their lawyers will be lining up to file suit, not just against churches of Tennessee Valley Presbytery but against the whole of the PCA (the deep pocket) now that the SJC has made the denomination arguably complicit and equally culpable—for materially aiding the sexual molestation of their minor children.
Easy money; like shooting fish in a barrel. Just ask the Scouts.
J. Lance Acree is in his 33rd year of service as a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. He researches preventable human error and lives with his wife of 41 years in Clinton, Tennessee.[i] If you are not familiar with the presbyterian form of church government, it has been hammered out over four and a half centuries as a systematic application of scripture, beginning primarily among Scottish churches in the 1560s.
[ii] Preface to the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO), Preliminary Principles, item 7; and BCO 11-2
[iii] BCO 7-3
[iv] For an example of an inference chain relating to standing, see the Minutes of the 21st General Assembly, page 188-189; a Presbytery supplied its well-constructed logic chain for all to see.
[v] See the chapter “Of Means and Ends” in Saul D. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971), or Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince.
[vi] To the contrary, see Christ’s command in Matt 20:25-28 / Mark 10:42-45.
[vii] In obedience to Christ’s command to “tell it to the church” (Matt 18) I published this experience in a booklet: Practicing the Truth: A Post Mortem.
[viii] See Carpenter, W. (2021). Woke Religion: Unmasking the False Gospel of Social Justice. Ambassador Int’l.
[ix] BCO 43
[x] The implied question of who might have been an eyewitness is a distracting deception; we all know that it’s highly probable every officer on the attendance roster was an eyewitness to the event in question.
[xi] See Leviticus 19:11.
[xii] Commissioners present tell me that the content of my complaint was not discussed during Executive Session.
[xiii] Example of a legal analysis of legislating from the bench: “By allowing a court to order restitution, for the first time, after the ninety-day deadline has lapsed, the Court has essentially deleted a provision from the MVRA and replaced it with its own judicially created provision, ignoring the plain meaning of the statute as explicitly embodied in § 3664(d)(5), and thereby legislating from the bench.” Sisemore, A. J. (2012). Straying from the Written Path: How the Supreme Court Eviscerated the Plain Meaning of the MVRA’s Ninety-Day Deadline Provision and Legislated from the Bench in Dolan v. United States. Oklahoma Law Review, 64(2), 211–233.
[xiv] For one example: Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?
[xv] Church-ianity is where orthodoxy is strong but orthopraxis is weak; selective antinomianism is the order of the day. These churches are about Christ but not of Him; He stands outside the door and knocks, because His Lordship is being systematically ignored. Churches where obedience to Christ is both preached and practiced are full of Christ-ians; these are churches of Christ. I make this distinction because of a trend among PCA churches of de-emphasizing simple obedience to Christ.
[xvi] Amusingly, such a charge would rely on the plain meaning of jurisdiction, instead of the SJC’s distortion that requires my prior attendance as a commissioner at a specific meeting.
[xvii] In Matt 18, “tell it to the church” clearly means a public rebuke.
[xviii] Preface to the PCA Book of Church Order
Related Posts: