Well, in the name of unity and progress, presbyters are often exhorted to empathy and imagination…maybe we should coin a new term: empathigination. Empathy is good. Putting oneself in the trendy, white-soled brown leather casual shoes of another can be helpful. For the last couple of decades, it seems empathigination in the PCA is primarily enjoined upon the cons (the conservatives and confessionalists).

The season is upon us. Presbyteries meet with an eye toward nominations, conflagrations, overtures, do-overtures, and assemblies general. Elders take stock and make reservations. Denominational issues become more real than they seemed in the bleak midwinter.
The annual-assembling Presbyterian Church in America, turning 50 and preparing to celebrate (or conflagrate?) in Memphis this June, is big, broad, and still orthodox in an evangelical sort of way. If this born-in-Birmingham denomination were a house, a cable TV remodeling show host might say she has good bones and a serviceable foundation. She grew like Topsy for a while, and some of the additions and improvements turned out a little weird—the proportions and paint scheme are messy. But messy is good, right? Still, some wonder if everything was really done to code, if some of the previous subcontractors weren’t a little shady.
Well, in the name of unity and progress, presbyters are often exhorted to empathy and imagination…maybe we should coin a new term: empathigination. Empathy is good. Putting oneself in the trendy, white-soled brown leather casual shoes of another can be helpful. For the last couple of decades, it seems empathigination in the PCA is primarily enjoined upon the cons (the conservatives and confessionalists).
In the interest of empathizing with the cons (for those who find this difficult), I offer as a service these words from a small-church pastor who ministers in the Southeast:
“I think I understand the frustration {two very online pastors} and most progressives feel. They are in a church world they don’t really want to be in. They believe many things the PCA believes, but they want to have practices that are simply not part of the ecclesiastical world they belong to. They stay constantly frustrated with their denomination because it is fundamentally something they aren’t. They want revivals, normative principle of worship, and the ability to innovate as they think appropriate. They want presbytery to be a network, more than a presbytery. They want the GA to be more national conference, less church court. Now, they have had successes, made changes, and have gotten a lot of what they want. But in the end, there are too many people committed to the denomination being what it is…this holds them back. And they do not want to be held back at all. They want full freedom and are resentful of any who don’t want the same, or who try and stop them from doing what they want.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Given the liberal (members, churches) elements’ abandonment of essential matters, conservative (members, churches) must withdraw. In such cases, the operative framework echoes Paul’s words (2 Cor. 6:14–16): Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.

The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man
Because liberal theologians like von Harnack and Ritschl emphasized the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man at the heart of liberalism, I begin with Machen’s acknowledgement that such emphases contain some truth: all human beings, as creatures of the one Creator and thus image bearers of God (Gen. 1:26–28), have God as their Father in the sense of creation. As Paul preached (Acts 17:24, 26, 27–29):
“The God who made the world and everything in it . . . gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. . . . He is actually not far from each one of us, for
‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
as even some of your own poets have said,
‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
Being then God’s offspring . . . .”
Alluding to the creation narrative of Adam (Gen. 2:7) and citing the pagan poets Epimenides of Crete (sixth to fifth century BC) and Aratus (“Phaenomena;” third century BC), the apostle affirms from Scripture and from the general human sense of a divine Creator the universal recognition that all human beings have God as their Father.[1] Consequently, all human beings belong to one brotherhood, in the sense of creation.
Though it balks at the liberal distortion of these truths, the contemporary church should acknowledge “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:6) and thus the unity of the human race: we are all sons and daughters of God the Father in the sense of creation. Accordingly, cooperative efforts between the peoples of the world, including Christians united with non-Christians in certain endeavors, should resonate with all human beings. These endeavors include efforts to halt genocide; to bring relief to the poor, marginalized, orphans, widows, and victims of natural disasters; to share resources and technology for the betterment of the disadvantaged; to advocate for a culture of life against a culture of death; to encourage biblically sanctioned human rights—these and other similar efforts contribute to the flourishing of human society, and our brothers and sisters by virtue of their origin are recipients of good deeds.
Christians rightly join itself to such efforts, reflecting Machen’s endorsement that Christianity “can accept all that the modern liberal means by the brotherhood of man” (133). At the same time, again following Machen, the church rightly embraces a different “Christian” notion of brotherhood: in the sense of salvation, only those who are rescued from sin by Jesus Christ constitute “the brotherhood of the redeemed” (134).
By affirming these two notions of brotherhood—the one, a universal idea in the sense of creation; the other, an exclusive idea in the sense of redemption—the contemporary church echoes Machen’s intriguing affirmation of both a universality and an exclusivity at the heart of Christianity: First and universally, the church indiscriminately communicates the gospel to all peoples everywhere, in obedience to Christ’s Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). Racial and ethnic prejudice, personal distaste for people of a different political persuasion, partiality, and indifference to the plight of the lost cannot be allowed to deter the church from expanding an invitation to the Christian brotherhood to all human beings.
Moreover, Christian ministry engages in good works not only to the “inside brotherhood” but the “outside brotherhood” as well. Paul and Barnabas exemplified such orientation, gladly obeying the exhortation of James, Peter, and John: “they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do” (Gal. 2:10). Paul continued and insisted on this thrust for all churches: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Gal. 6:10). James demanded the same inclination: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27).
Second and exclusively, the church acknowledges the severe limitations of such loving service toward people in need. It prioritizes instead its evangelistic efforts that urge sinful people to repent of their sins and trust Jesus Christ alone—exclusively—to save them. As the gospel ignites faith (Rom. 10:17), as the good news brings about regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23–25), as divine grace prompts belief (Acts 18:27), the Christian brotherhood expands, which is the hope of the world.
Separation from Liberal Churches
Machen theologically and strategically advocates for conservative Christians to remain in their churches and protect/reclaim them from liberalism; at the same time, he realistically acknowledges that such a conserving presence and influence may not ultimately succeed. As the saying goes, Machen practiced what he preached: in the 1930s, he led a group of conservative ministers and lay people out of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) and formed the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), shortly later re-named the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Other examples, like the Conservative Baptist movement that emerged from the Northern (now American) Baptist Convention (1943), could be cited.
In our contemporary church context, two similar developments stand out: the Anglican Church of North America and the Methodist Church.
In the early 2000s, conservative members of the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada broke from their Episcopal/Anglican churches and formed the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) under the auspices of Anglican bishops in Africa and South America. The issue at the heart of their departure was growing concern about the disconcerting pervasiveness and expansion of liberalism—particularly abandonment of biblical authority and truthfulness and departure from historic Christianity—in the existing communions.[2]
In 2022, conservative Methodists broke from the United Methodist Church (UMC) and formed the Global Methodist Church (GMC). In large part, discussion about and actual disaffiliation awaits the 2024 General Conference of the UMC; however, some conservative churches have already joined the GMC. As with the ACNA, the key issue is biblical authority as particularly applied to LGBTQ+ issues.[3]
As Machen prophesied and warned, such departure could cost the fledgling conservative congregations their church property. And it has. The Falls Church, which left the Episcopal Church in the United States in 2006, lost a court battle and had to give up its 250-year-old property.[4] Still, this future of financial/property loss for conservative churches is not set: while decisions about church properties are still a year off in the United Methodist Church, some early signs point to broad (even financial) support for the new GMC.[5]
Departure of members from their local church, and disaffiliation of churches from their denomination, are somber and severe decisions. On the one hand, the unity of the church is broken—a serious matter.
Read More
Related Posts:

What Covenant Presbytery has wisely done is encourage parties to reconcile. This is always the goal anyhow: to agree in the Lord, to dwell in unity and peace. The resolution adopted by Covenant Presbytery exhorts everyone to do so while acknowledging that “mistakes were made,” which provides an opportunity for repentance and reconciliation. The decision of the SJC identifies some of the specific errors that were made by Church Courts in this case, which would be a good starting point for reconciliation.

The case of the Jonesboro 7 was a travesty of ecclesiastical justice. So much so the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA even noted the process was “abused.” I’ve written about the Jonesboro 7 somewhat extensively here and on PCA Polity.1 Others have written about it too (here and here).
As such, I planned to write no more on this subject. I thought further analysis would only distract from the good work of a thriving church plant in Jonesboro.
But there has been a new development in reference to the case, something that – according to one former General Assembly Moderator – is unprecedented.
At its February 2024 meeting, Covenant Presbytery considered an overture from the Session of Christ Covenant PCA in Hernando, Missippi. The Overture urged reconciliation between the men known as the Jonesboro 7 and Covenant Presbytery, which sustained their wrongful conviction. The Moderator of Covenant Presbytery is RE David Caldwell, but he – as a member of the previous Temporary Session – has relinquished the chair on all Jonesboro 7 matters (according to a confidential source within Covenant Presbytery).
After some debate, the overture was referred to the Presbytery’s Church Care Committee (CCC). On May 21, 2024 Covenant Presbytery – meeting at the Independent Presbyterian Church of Memphis – overwhelmingly adopted seven recommendations from the CCC.
You can find all seven recommendations here. I’m going to focus on four things Covenant Presbytery did in adopting these recommendations.
Recognize
The Presbytery unequivocally and without qualification recognized that “mistakes were made” in the judicial case. But the Presbytery went further and apologized and expressed regret specifically for not following “the process laid out in BCO 32-5.”
This is nothing short of remarkable. And it is what the gospel enables people to do; to apologize when they have done wrong. Here a whole church court has recognized its failure to uphold proper procedure and not only apologized, but expressed its regret.
As part of this recognition, the Presbytery urged its members to “read all SJC decisions, especially those that pertain to cases in which our Presbytery or our members were involved.” The SJC decision and concurring opinion clearly identify where there were failures of procedure by the Presbytery and Session in this case.
Covenant Presbytery is to be commended for not seeking to conceal its past oversights and mistakes, but to learn from them for the future and to direct the people to the SJC Report where those oversights and mistakes were catalogued.
Remind
The Presbytery honed in on the specific issue that was such a grievous oversight by the Temporary Session (largely consisting of elders from IPC Memphis, the host church for the May 21, 2024 Presbytery meeting): the lack of specificity in the indictment.
The men were told they violated the Fifth and Ninth Commandments in the indictment. The indictment quoted from the PCA Constitution regarding those Commandments, but there were no specifics regarding when, where, and how the Law of God was (allegedly) breached by their conduct.
This left the Jonesboro 7 wholly unable to prepare a defense, since they weren’t told how they sinned only that they did. In fact when the Jonesboro 7 pleaded with their Session to tell them what they were accused of, TE Jeff Wreyford – their pastor at the time – wrote them: “it seems disingenuous for you to continue to insist that you do not know what you are being charged with.”2
This curious interpretation of what an indictment requires (or doesn’t require) was embraced by Covenant Presbytery when she denied the appeal of the Jonesboro 7.
The Presbytery Representatives, including a nationally-renowned lawyer from Arkansas, defended the defective indictments even before the SJC.
Read More
Related Posts: