God has been abundantly kind, patient, and good to the PCA for the last 51 years and especially so recently. Since 2018, the PCA is has strengthened her commitment to marriage and historic, biblical sexuality, she has enhanced her focus on holding one another accountable through the Presbyteries, and is currently seeking to expand her ties with Reformed Churches globally. It is a great day to be in the PCA.

Editorial Note: I’m compiling a YouTube playlist on many of the speeches from this year’s General Assembly if you want to see some of the men make the arguments summarized here.
I have written a report on the General Assembly each year since at least 2015, and the transformation in that time is remarkable. In 2015 I summarized the state of the PCA after the Chattanooga Assembly for my elders and the congregation I served in this way:
We are, on the whole, a “sound” denomination, and there was much that was encouraging about the future of the PCA, but there were a few items of great concern.
Looking back nearly a decade later and forward to another General Assembly in Chattanooga next year, the character of the Assembly has profoundly changed; we’re no longer merely ‘on the whole a “sound” denomination.” Since 2015, the PCA has taken significant strides toward confessional renewal and to embrace our identity as a robustly Reformed and profoundly Presbyterian communion.
It is a great time to be in the PCA.
The Assembly begins with a worship service. The first worship service served as an exemplar of Reformed and Presbyterian worship. There were very few musicians, no “special music,” the musicians understood their role as accompanists rather than performers. The preaching, by retiring Moderator TE Fred Greco, was a faithful, exegetical passionate, personal proclamation of God’s word calling us to be “Faithful to the Scripture.”
What a blessing it is to worship with thousands of others according to the simple and beautiful principles of biblically ordered worship. Thanks to RE Rick Hutton of All Saints Reformed Presbyterian Church for his leadership in planning this worship service.
I. Presiding Officer: the Election of a Moderator
Only one man was put forward for moderator, RE Steve Dowling; he was nominated by RE Melton Duncan. RE Dowling is a faithful churchman and served the Assembly last year as Overtures Committee Chairman as well as for many years on the Standing Judicial Commission.
He has been active in the Mission to the Military and Internationals working to promote church planting abroad.
This Assembly featured some procedural surprises, and RE Dowling ably and skillfully steered the Assembly with clarity and even-handedness, wit and good cheer.
II. Polity
A. Officer Titles
The Assembly made an impressive start on Tuesday night by approving all three BCO changes ratified by the Presbyteries. Both Item 2 (chastity in character, convictions, and conduct for officers) and Item 3 (requiring a person’s confession of sin to be reviewed by those whom s/he offended) passed with little opposition
Item 1, however, passed only after considerable debate. Item 1 restricts the ecclesiastical use of the titles of Pastor, Elder, and Deacon to ordained officers only. This is a necessary and narrow change because numerous churches have women or other unordained people using the titles of church office, but without ordination.
At least one PCA church in Atlanta has a woman pastor.
Item 1 makes it abundantly clear that in the PCA every Pastor, Elder, and Deacon has been ordained and elected to office and that churches are prohibited from giving those titles to unordained people.
There were several speeches in opposition to this change. While there was one speech that made a biblical argument for women in the office of deacon, most other speeches centered on two other major objections: (1) the longstanding practice of referring to women and unordained people with the titles of church office or (2) the cultural customs of some of the churches to use these titles for non-officers.
I was disappointed by some of the particular arguments. Even before this change, our Book of Church Order already was abundantly clear the titles of elder and deacon were to be used in ecclesiastical contexts to refer only to ordained men (cf. BCO 17-1). I found it shocking Elders were willing to admit on the floor of the Assembly that they and/or their Session are not in conformity with the requirements of PCA’s Constitution.
Item 1 made no change in what was lawful in the PCA. It simply added a paragraph to BCO 7 that weaves together in one place requirements stipulated in multiple places elsewhere in the BCO (cf. BCO 9-1, 9-3, 16-3, and 17-1).
B. Review of Presbytery Records (RPR)
The RPR has become the center of greater focus as the competing visions for the PCA interact more directly. One side of the PCA seems to envision a polity that is driven by broad adherence to the general outlines of procedure and theology, whereas another wing of the PCA believes in more careful observance of our constitution and procedures.
For the past few years the latter vision of the PCA has been able to persuade the Assembly to demand closer adherence to our Rules. This year’s RPR report and the debate featured numerous attempts to alter the RPR Report to remove “exceptions of substance” and allow questionable Presbytery actions to stand without the General Assembly requiring the Presbytery to explain further or respond to questions raised by the action.
Two items warrant further discussion. In addition to simply finding exceptions of substance, sometimes the RPR Committee will discover issues in Presbytery actions, which they believe are grossly unconstitutional (BCO 40-5). In two cases, the General Assembly referred matters to the Judicial Commission.
1. New York Metro Presbytery (MNY)
Continuing the multi-year saga flowing from MNY’s initial failure to adequately redress a situation of a priestess pretending to preach in a PCA pulpit, the General Assembly again found the Presbytery to have failed to abide by the Constitution.
The issue this year seemed to center on the Presbytery’s failure to institute judicial process against the senior minister of a church who confessed to a view that is contrary to the standards of the PCA and the teaching of the Scripture (BCO 29-1). This minister’s view led to the scandal with the priestess in the pulpit.
The General Assembly’s Judicial Commission will now have to determine how to remedy the situation given the Presbytery’s alleged failure to abide by our Constitution.
2 . Columbus Metro Presbytery (CMP)
Whereas the MNY matter came to the Assembly through the ordinary review of minutes, the CMP matter came by means of a letter from a former member of a now-closed PCA Congregation near Columbus, Ohio. Interestingly, it seemed – based on comments on the floor – that the elders reviewing CMP’s minutes did not notice this very serious issue, but the only reason it was before the Assembly was due to a single letter from a concerned member. There are many layers of PCA polity to ensure transparency and accountability.
In the letter, the member alleged CMP unlawfully closed the congregation without giving the requisite 60-day notice and then took control of the Congregation’s assets without the consent of the members of the congregation.
It appears the Presbytery may have ignored the pleas of the members to keep the little congregation open after the Ruling Elders and pastor resigned.
This is the second time in two years our GA Handbook has contained reference to a PCA Church Court usurping the rights of the congregation. It is interesting a speech on the floor seemed to argue that since the value of the assets was only about $18,000, this matter should not rise to a judicial reference, but instead should simply be handled as an ordinary matter of an exception of substance.
By an overwhelming margin, the Assembly rejected arguments that this matter appeared to be anything other than a grossly unconstitutional action (cf. BCO 25-8).
I am thankful the Assembly – like its judicial commission last year – clearly and unequivocally stood up for the rights of the (now dissolved) congregation and directed its judicial commission to consider the matter.
C. Preaching
After limited debate, the Assembly declined to grant constitutional authority to the BCO Chapter 53 regarding preaching (by a mere 49 votes: 857-906).
It is unclear as of yet why the Assembly rejected this proposal. It may be a fear or suspicion regarding codifying our principles that govern worship; it may be that people reacted against the emphasis of the “Whereas” statements rather than the substance of the proposal.
I believe another reason this failed is simply that many faithful presbyters are – on principle – opposed to changing our Constitution unless it can be proven to be absolutely necessary. Given how almost every other vote went, I suspect there were a number in the “Old School” wing of the PCA who may have withheld their “yeas” on this question because its necessity had not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Similarly, I think the proponents of this change linked its fate far too closely to a “women in pulpits” concern rather than dealing with the importance of preaching as a means of grace. Instead of seeing this issue as part of the culture war and gender roles, I believe we should have considered this question as part of the broader philosophical identity of the PCA and what we believe preaching is.
I hope the “Old School” wing of the PCA will reconsider and strengthen this proposal in the future and invest more heavily in its adoption into the Constitution by showing the necessity of this chapter in particular. I believe the PCA would benefit from a more fully developed Directory of Worship that reflects the teaching of the Scripture and balances the two Scriptural principles contained in BCO 47-6:
The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter.
And
There is true liberty only where the rules of God’s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God’s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.
When we balance these principles (biblical liberty and order), there is room for diversity of forms and expression, while still being united by a shared theology and philosophy of worship that is regulated according to the Scripture.
D. RUF Affiliation Agreement
The Assembly adopted a standardized affiliation agreement to govern the relationship between Presbyteries and RUF Ministries. This will provide for more seamless collaboration between Lawrenceville and the Regional staff of RUF with the local campus ministry and the supporting presbytery.
Read More

Related Posts:

Where did things go wrong between the genders? Not with God’s original design. God’s original design for men and women was good — not just good but very good. We dare not ignore the dignity of both men and women or eliminate the differences between them, because those differences are good. We have to look at where the problem began, and that isn’t with God but with our ancient enemy the devil. He introduced sin into the world, and as we’re going to see, sin affected the relationship between men and women.

Last summer, we were camping about half an hour east of North Bay when our car broke down. It really broke down. It was almost un-drivable.
We faced three issues:

First, the immediate issue: how to get the vehicle home.
Second, diagnosing the problem, because you have to know what you are trying to fix.
Third, actually getting it fixed.

We solved the first issue. It involved God answering prayer and some questionable driving decisions that turned out fine. But diagnosing the problem was a bit harder. We’re not mechanics, so we guessed wrong what the issue might be. But we’re not the only one. Our mechanic guessed wrong and ordered the wrong part, which we still ended up paying for, but in the end we got what we wanted. All three issues were solved. We got the vehicle home. We finally diagnosed the problem accurately. And we got it fixed at a price we could afford.
I’m here to tell you that the same three issues apply to our discussion of gender.

First, we face immediate issues. These are the real issues that we face every day: questions of singleness and marriage, gender roles and differences, tensions between the genders, and other pressing issues.
But then we face the challenge of diagnosing the problems. What’s underneath the immediate issues? This is important, because if we make the wrong diagnosis, we won’t solve the problem.
And then we actually have to take the step of getting the issue solved.

Today, I want to focus on the second stage. I want to focus on diagnosing the problem that causes many of the issues between the genders. What’s behind all the tensions between men and women — societal issues like harassment, stereotypes, and double standards? Closer to home, what makes it so hard sometimes for men and women to get along?
We’ve got to come to an accurate diagnosis of the problem if we’re going to come up with the solution.
The Wrong Diagnosis
Here’s why I think this is so important. I think we often tend to misdiagnose the problem. We think and act as if the problem is the difference between the genders, which is why we often find ourselves trying to either erase the differences between men and women, or to devalue one gender or the other. There are few more issues that get more heated than this one. As one person points out, “Few topics have generated such heat or confusion as the 21st-century debates over sex, gender and male-female relations.”
Because we get the diagnosis wrong, we also get the cure wrong.
For instance, you’ve heard the term toxic masculinity. There is such a thing as toxic masculinity. But it would be easy to think that the problem is masculinity itself. Masculinity is good! God came up with the idea. I love what one author writes: “Men become dangerous not because their masculinity is toxic but because their humanity is … In short, the answer is not to weaken men, but to help them grow stronger.” The problem isn’t masculinity in itself; the problem is sin. If we misdiagnose the problem, we’ll misdiagnose the solution.
In other words, the problem isn’t what we think it is. Last week we saw that God’s original design for men and women is good — not just good but very good. We’ve seen looked at Genesis 1 and 2 and have seen that men and women have dignity and differences that are designed for our good and our joy:

Men and women have dignity — Both genders are made in the image of God. They’re equal in personhood and importance, and and it takes both genders to represent God in this world.
Men and women have differences — Eve was created both alike and different from Adam. They correspond to each other. Men and women have both similarities and profound differences, and yet those differences are meant to be a source of joy.

Many of our problems today is because we let go of one of those truths: dignity or differences. We have to hold both together. Both men and women have dignity, but men and women also have differences. If we let go of the dignity of each gender, or ignore the differences between the genders, we will go wrong.
The problem is not God’s design of men and women. That is a very good thing. If we think that erasing the differences is the solution to restoring dignity to both genders, then we’ve misdiagnosed the problem and we’ll come up with the wrong solution.
We need to hold on to the dignity of both men and women and the differences between us. The problem doesn’t lie in our differences; the problem is elsewhere.
The Real Problem
Genesis 3 tells us what the real issue is.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (Genesis 3:1-7)
I want to make two observations.
The Problem Began with the Craftiness of Our Enemy, Not with God’s Design
You find a talking serpent. Revelation identifies the snake as “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” (Revelation 12:9). And what did that serpent do? He tempted the first couple to question God’s word and seize something that didn’t belong to them yet. He provoked them to distrust God and to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong. Rather than submitting to God, they try to take God’s place. As Spurgeon put it, they struck a match and set the world on fire with sin.
Read More
Related Posts:

When a believer has the profound, heart-felt desire to see God, like Job did, it demonstrates how valuable God is.  People and things that matter to us make an emotional impression on us.  And who is of more worth, objectively speaking, than God?  What is of more worth, objectively speaking, than the gospel?

In my corner of Reformed Christianity we’re not particularly adept at expressing our emotions.  Perhaps it can be chalked up to our Dutch immigrant roots; maybe to our ecclesiastical sub-culture.  Whatever the case may be, we’re not given to putting ourselves out there emotionally.  This certainly guards us against the sentimental excesses seen in some circles.  But does this steely stoicism line us up completely with Scripture?
Job 19:25-27 is one passage which might suggest otherwise.  Many people are familiar with this passage because it’s used in Handel’s Messiah.  Oftentimes you’ll hear it at funerals.  I always read it at graveside services and it provides a lot of comfort.  It does so because it confidently speaks of the hope of the resurrection.
As you believe this resurrection gospel, which is fulfilled in Jesus, it shouldn’t leave you unaffected.  It deeply impacted Job and that’s evident from the last line:  “My heart faints within me!”  Those words are pregnant with emotion.  Job had a deep yearning to see God with his own eyes in his glorified resurrection body.
Can you relate to that?  Does your heart “faint within you” when you hear about what the gospel promises in the resurrection of the dead?  One could reasonably expect such a response, because of the nature of these truths.  God gives us profoundly encouraging news here.  But what if you can’t relate?  What if these kinds of truths don’t touch your heart like they did Job?  I have more good news for you.
First, our salvation doesn’t depend on our emotions and what the gospel does to us emotionally.  Our salvation entirely depends on God’s free grace in Christ.
Read More