The bottom line is that evaluating candidates and judging differences is not an empirical question, but a theological one. Each court has the right to declare the terms of admission into its membership (Preliminary Principle #2). Simply because a stated difference is commonly granted as an exception does not mean the same difference must be granted an exception in every presbytery. Conversely, simply because a stated difference is uncommon does not necessarily require that the exception may not be granted. It is also appropriate at this point to consider how helpful it may be – not only to the purity and unity of the church, but particularly for the candidate being examined – for presbytery not to grant an exception on a first examination, and instead to ask the man to consider further study. 

Good Faith Subscription (GFS), the practice of allowing a man to assent to most of the Westminster Standards in “good faith” while allowing him to state minor differences in parts, has been practiced in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) for almost 20 years.
The practice was officially amended into the PCA’s Book of Church Order when Overture 10 passed at the 31st General Assembly (see 2003 GA minutes, pp. 50-51, 54-56). This amendment required each candidate for the gospel ministry in the PCA to state in his own words any differences with the Westminster Standards (the Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as adopted by the PCA). Presbyteries are permitted to grant differences as “exceptions” to the Standards if the court determined that the difference “is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.”
Overture 10 from the 31st GA and overtures since adopted (see 2011 GA minutes, p. 25; 2012 GA minutes, pp. 63, 75, 105-107; 2013 GA minutes, p. 17) are unequivocally concerned with GA’s oversight of the peace, purity, and unity of the Church. However, to my knowledge, no one has systematically attempted to document how widespread the practice of “being granted exceptions” is or which Standards the practice touches, information that should be critical to GA’s oversight.
As a glorified bean counter, I turned to a basic skill on which I often rely to help make sense of a situation: counting. The purpose of this exercise is not for me to express an opinion on the merits and demerits of GFS, but rather to provide empirical insights to inform the conversation on so-called Good Faith and Full Subscription. Some may read these findings with great encouragement that GFS is working well and that clear distinctions are drawn between exceptions that do or do not strike at the vitals. Others may be concerned with the extent to which teaching elders in the PCA hold differences with the denomination’s constitutional standards. Hopefully, there will be helpful insights for those on both sides of the issue.
Methodology
In the absence of a census of stated differences, the only denomination-wide data on exceptions are in the reports to GA of the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records (RPR). According to the PCA’s Rules of Assembly Operations 16-3, whenever presbytery examines a candidate, presbytery must record any stated differences the candidate may have in his own words, as well as presbytery’s judgment of those differences. If a clerk fails to record any of these details, presbytery’s minutes may be flagged by RPR as an exception of substance. For example, RPR may note that the record of a teaching elder’s transfer exam was incomplete. During the subsequent year, presbytery may respond to RPR’s exception of substance by providing the missing elements of the transfer exam, including the teaching elder’s stated differences (if any) and the specific Standards with which he stated a difference. This process makes it possible to gain a generalizable sense of exceptions in the PCA, even if the RPR reports are a “fuzzy proxy” for stated differences across the PCA.
I want to make explicitly clear that I intend no judgment against presbytery clerks through this exercise. Indeed, exchanges between presbyteries and RPR have proven healthful for clarifying BCO language (see Overture 2 for the 51stGA) or for clarifying whether these differences can be taught (as in the cases of Calvary, Northwest Georgia, and Ohio Valley, see 2021 GA minutes, pp. 529-534, 592-594, 594-596). The kinds of mistakes that could lead to RPR flagging an item are the kinds of mistakes I likely make on a weekly basis, if not more frequently. Because they are such easy mistakes to make, it can be believed that this method approaches plausibly representative estimates for the denomination.
For this analysis to be generalizable, it must be believed that such a mistake is essentially random. Clerks are not picky about how they make mistakes. Rather, a mistake could be made just as easily for recording a Second Commandment exception as for a Fourth Commandment exception, or for a man stating no differences as for a man stating several. Random events in large enough samples should produce roughly representative data (e.g., 100 coin flips should yield roughly 50 heads and 50 tails).
The RPR reports from 2003 (the first year affected by the GFS overture) to 2023 provide a large enough sample that I believe we can accept them as reasonably representative. If anything, exceptions may be undercounted in my analysis. For example, Korean Language Presbyteries had twice as many flagged items as other presbyteries, but were three times as likely to have a man stating no differences. If KLPs are overrepresented in this sample, men who state no differences may be overrepresented as well.
Furthermore, it is likely that the Sabbath exception is undercounted. Pacific Northwest Presbytery, for example, mentioned that it was its practice not to record “the typical exception to the Standards’ definition of Sabbath sanctification” (see 2013 GA minutes, p. 465). If it is the case in some presbyteries not to record this exception, the relative prevalence of differences on the Fourth Commandment will be conservatively estimated by this method.
Findings
What did I find after reading these RPR reports? First, approximately 4 exceptions are granted (to other candidates) for each man who states no differences with the Standards. Second, the most common differences are related to the Westminster Standards’ teachings on the Fourth Commandment, the Second Commandment, and Creation. Third, exceptions to the Standards’ teaching regarding the Fourth Commandment touch the Standards in more places than do other exceptions.
Read More
Related Posts:

The self-sufficiency of God has huge implications for our understanding of worship. When we gather on a Sunday, who is gaining? Not God, but us. We don’t come because he needs us but because we need him. We come ultimately not to give but to gain. How else could needy, dependent sinners approach the God of all life?

Most Christians will admit there are Sunday mornings when they awaken and wonder whether it’s even worth getting out of bed. Surely God doesn’t need our worship? We’re not serving on the set up team this week. No one will notice if we’re not there. We can perhaps read the Bible ourselves a bit later, pray from the comfort of the couch, pop on some Christian music over coffee. So why bother with corporate worship?
The answer is found not so much by searching the Scriptures for commands to gather—though those commands are certainly there. Rather, we need to look at the God who calls us to worship. I didn’t marry my wife because someone explained the duties and responsibilities of a husband—though those responsibilities are clearly presented in the Bible. No, I met, got to know, and fell in love with Georgina. So we’ll focus on just two truths about God that help us to understand why we worship and what blessings come as a result.
The God Who Deserves Everything
Creatures are made to worship their Creator. When anyone, be they human or angel, turns to think about who God is and what he’s done, the right response is worship.
Unlike bleary- eyed Christians on a Sunday morning, those already in heaven see God clearly and react instinctively to encountering him. To give just one example, in Revelation 4 we meet four strange creatures who live before the throne of God. What do they spend their lives doing? “Day and night they never cease to say, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!’” (Rev. 4:8). These heavenly beings spend every moment in worship: it’s as if it never occurs to them to do anything else. Here they praise God for who he is. He is holy, he is all-powerful, he is eternal. Seeing God’s character and attributes leads to an outburst of praise.
It’s the same when the twenty-four elders, perhaps symbolic of the redeemed people of God, respond to the creatures’ song: “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Rev. 4:11). This time the focus is not so much on who God is but on what he has done: he has created all things and sustains them moment by moment. Regularly in Scripture, worship emerges from a worshipper’s reflections on the wonderful deeds of God. The Psalms are full of this pattern. Take Psalm 147, which begins with the classic exhortation “Praise the Lord!” The whole psalm then piles up reasons to praise him.
The Lord builds up Jerusalem;he gathers the outcasts of Israel.He heals the brokenheartedand binds up their wounds.He determines the number of the stars;he gives to all of them their names. (Ps. 147:2–4)
As the psalmist reflects on God’s kindness to his people—his building of the church and his willingness to deal tenderly with the brokenhearted, even as he is also the one who flung stars into space—he can’t help but worship.
In the New Testament era, it’s no different. As we return to the heavenly throne room, we meet the elders and creatures who are combining their voices to praise Jesus for all he’s done: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev. 5:12).
We could multiply examples almost endlessly. Worship ultimately is what we do when we draw near to God. It is his due. Everything we are and have comes from him, so it’s right that we respond in humble thanks and praise.
The Joy of Worship
But we mustn’t think this is mere duty, the kind of reverence shown by terrified citizens who are called to bow before the image of a despotic dictator. Rather, to worship God is our greatest privilege and joy. Perhaps the most famous lines ever to come from a Presbyterian pen are the question and answer that open the Westminster Shorter Catechism: “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Glorifying God is not a separate activity from enjoying him forever. Notice the question isn’t “What are the two chief ends of man?” but what is our one, singular “end” or purpose. Incredible though it may seem, God has created us for joy—to share with us the greatest gift he could give: himself. And the way we experience that delight is by worshipping him. This is why the Psalms are so full of joy.
In your presence there is fullness of joy;at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (Ps. 16:11)
Then I will go to the altar of God,to God my exceeding joy,and I will praise you with the lyre,O God, my God. (Ps. 43:4)
With joy and gladness they are led alongas they enter the palace of the king. (Ps. 45:15)
Worship is not just a duty but a delight. We are built to worship, to give ourselves in wonder to something—or rather Someone—who is awesome and worthy. In fact, in the Bible’s understanding everyone is a worshipper. The question isn’t whether we’ll worship but who we’ll worship. In Romans 1, Paul’s critique of humanity isn’t that they stopped worshipping but rather that “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). Stop worshipping God and we’ll start worshipping something else. To put it another way, every human being on earth will be worshipping next Sunday morning. The only question is who or what they’ll worship: the triune God or Allah, Baal, comfort, golf, family, or any of the thousands of other idols we give ourselves to. And from what we’ve seen already, this switch is not just evil but foolish. It’s to swap pure spring water for filthy sewage, a king’s banquet for rat poison and arsenic.
God deserves everything; he deserves all our worship.
The God Who Needs Nothing
So we worship God because he deserves everything, and in that worship we know the blessing of joy and wonder as we meet him. But there’s another truth about God that at first sight might seem strange but that turns out to be a tremendous encouragement as Sunday morning rolls around. That strangely good news is that God doesn’t need us. More than that, in fact: God doesn’t need anything.
This is sometimes known as God’s self-sufficiency or independence. It emerges from the first verse of the Bible, where we learn that God created the heavens and earth. The sky, the stars, the earth we stand on: it all depends on God, the uncreated one, for its existence. Human beings rely on fuel to run; we need water, air, and food to sustain us. God, however, needs nothing. He is entirely self-existent. That’s why he reveals himself to Moses at the burning bush as “I am” (Ex. 3:14). Though the fire (which represents God) is in the bush, the bush isn’t actually burning—the fire needs no fuel.
Because God made all things and owns all things and is himself dependent on nothing, it’s ultimately impossible for anyone to really give anything to him—at least in the sense of giving so he genuinely gains from it. Paul makes exactly this point.
“Or who has given a gift to himthat he might be repaid?”
For from him and through him and to him are all things.To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:35–36)
The answer to Paul’s question is clearly “No one.” No one has ever given anything to God, putting God in their debt. Why not? Because everything came from him, exists because of him, and is made for him. What could you give him that isn’t his already? What can you add to benefit an all-knowing, all-powerful, eternally happy God?
The self-sufficiency of God has huge implications for our understanding of worship. When we gather on a Sunday, who is gaining? Not God, but us. We don’t come because he needs us but because we need him. We come ultimately not to give but to gain. How else could needy, dependent sinners approach the God of all life? As Paul writes to the Athenians,
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. (Acts 17:24–25)
This truth about God helps to shed even more light on the worship service in heaven we saw earlier. There we heard that God was worthy to receive “glory and honor and power” (Rev. 4:11). But what does it mean for God to “receive” glory from his people? The self-sufficiency of God shows us that it can’t mean God is actually becoming more glorious. His glory is already infinite! Likewise, as he is praised, he doesn’t become more powerful. Rather, the elders’ song declares that all the praise, all the honor, all the power used by creatures in worship ought to be directed solely to God. It is right that we worship him with all that we are and all that we have—in that sense we give him glory. But as we do so, he isn’t gaining; incredibly, we are.
C. S. Lewis gives a good illustration of this principle, which is worth quoting at length.
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to [his or her] father and saying, “Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.” Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child’s present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.1
When we sing to God, pray to him, and give of our money, he remains sixpence none the richer. But we, doing what we were created for, are immeasurably blessed. The glory is his, the gain ours.
This chapter is an excerpt from Reformed Worship by Jonty Rhodes; it is a new release and is used with permission from P&R Publishers.
1 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, UK: HarperCollins, 2002), 143.
Related Posts:

With respect to membership, PCA churches with schools are significantly larger. The average PCA church has 230 members on its rolls on average. Churches with schools average 630 members, while those without average 190. They have both more communicant members (500 vs. 148) and non-communicant members (131 vs. 41).

Among many of the Overtures that passed at PCA General Assembly last year was Overture 22 from Northwest Georgia Presbytery, which made statistical data digitally accessible. The statistics reported include data on church-led schools. As someone whose professional and personal interests include education and Reformed theology, this of course piqued my interest. What did I learn about schools in the Presbyterian Church in America?
Comparing churches with and without schools
Of the 1,669 churches reporting data, only about nine percent (150) report having an education ministry affiliated with their church. The churches with schools are significantly different from churches without schools in several meaningful ways. In short, they have more members, more elders and deacons, and more income and expenses.
With respect to membership, PCA churches with schools are significantly larger. The average PCA church has 230 members on its rolls on average. Churches with schools average 630 members, while those without average 190. They have both more communicant members (500 vs. 148) and non-communicant members (131 vs. 41). However, even churches with schools had wide variation in membership. Half of the churches with schools had between 50 and 400 members.
With respect to membership changes, PCA churches with schools tend to gain and lose more members than churches without schools. In the most recent year of reporting, churches with schools gained 42 members in the past year (vs. 14). As churches with education ministries may be addressing a growing need in their congregations, it is perhaps unsurprising that many of these new members came by way of child’s profession of faith (7.3 vs 2.5) and infant baptism (6.9 vs. 2.9). Interestingly, churches with schools on average experienced net negative growth, losing about 0.8% of their rolls, while churches without schools experienced net positive growth, adding about 2.1% to their rolls.
As expected with larger memberships, churches with schools had more elders and deacons as well. The average PCA church reported 5.5 elders and 6.1 deacons. Those with a school had roughly 13 elders and 13 deacons, while those without had roughly 5 elders and 5 deacons.
Finally, with respect to church finances, churches with schools had more income and expenses. In the most recent year reporting, the average PCA church had just over $700,000 in total income. Those with schools averaged $2.5 million, while those without averaged just over $500,000. Churches with schools had more expenses as well, including more benevolence, more budgeted expenses, and more building fund expenses. Again, even churches with schools had wide variation in finances. Half of the churches with schools had total income less than $1.2 million, and one-quarter of these churches had total income less than $500,000.

Table 1. PCA churches with and without schools

Has school?

PCA
Yes
No
Diff
Sig.

Membership

Communicant members
180.0
499.9
148.3
351.6
*

Non-communicant members
49.4
130.6
41.4
89.2
*

Total members
229.7
630.4
189.9
440.6
*

Membership changes

Added
16.5
42.0
14.0
28.0
*

Profession of faith (child)
3.0
7.3
2.5
4.8
*

Infant baptisms
3.3
6.9
2.9
3.9
*

Lost
14.5
43.4
11.7
31.8
*

Net growth (added minus lost)
2.0
-1.5
2.3
-3.8

Growth % (Net growth / Total members)
1.87%
-0.82%
2.14%
-2.96

Morning worship attendance
149.8
352.8
128.0
224.8
*

Leadership

Ruling Elders
5.5
12.7
4.7
8.0
*

Deacons
6.1
13.0
5.3
7.7
*

Finances (in thousands)

Total church income
$716.5
2,509.2
540.9
1,968.3
*

Total benevolence
$99.4
402.6
69.7
332.9
*

Total budgeted expenses
$534.6
1,572.6
433.4
1,139.1
*

Total building fund
$108.6
303.7
84.2
219.5
*

n
1669
150
1519

Notes. * indicates statistically significant difference between samples, p < 0.001. Examining the schools of PCA churches Of the 150 churches in the PCA data that reported having a school, I was able to find information on 116 of them. The most common education ministry is a standalone early education program, that is, a school serving only pre-kindergarten and/or kindergarten, roughly 45 percent of all PCA schools. Nearly 90 percent offer pre-K, three-fifths offer kindergarten, half offer elementary, half offer middle school, and a third offer high school. By presbytery and geography, churches with schools are concentrated in the southeast. The presbytery with the greatest number of church-led schools is Evangel with ten. Chesapeake and Southeast Alabama each have seven schools. Florida leads the states with 25 schools, followed closely by Alabama with 24. Eleven states have only one PCA school each, and 23 states and the District of Columbia have zero PCA schools. Table 2. PCA schools by presbytery Presbytery Churches with Schools Evangel 10 Chesapeake 7 Southeast Alabama 7 Central Florida 6 Gulf Coast 6 Nashville 6 Mississippi Valley 5 Missouri 5 South Florida 5 79 presbyteries 4 or fewer each With respect to tuition, for simplicity, I examined the highest level of tuition charged by each school, as reported on their website. The average PCA school charges just under $8,000 in tuition per year. Tuition is much lower at standalone EE programs at $3,700 compared to those offering elementary, middle, or high school grades ($10,700), but tuition for standalone EE programs can rise to as high as $11,484. The most expensive PCA school is Christ Presbyterian Academy, a ministry of Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville, TN, at $24,925 for upper school tuition. Next, I considered enrollment, as reported in the PCA statistical data. The average PCA school enrolls around 240 students. Similar to tuition, enrollment tends to be lower at standalone EE programs (83 students on average) than at schools serving other grades (373 students on average). The largest PCA school by enrollment is Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL, with 1,659 students. School enrollment and church membership tend to be positively correlated, while school tuition and church budget are weakly correlated. Table 3. PCA school characteristics Pre-K and K only? Overall Yes No Tuition Average $7,777.63 3,734.28 10,665.73 Minimum $290.00 290.00 3,000.00 Maximum $24,925.00 11,484.00 24,925.00 Enrollment Average 243.2 83.1 373.4 Minimum 14 14 27 Maximum 1659 285 1659 Grades Offered Standalone Pre-K or K 44.8% Pre-K 87.1% K 61.2% Elementary 52.6% Middle 46.6% High 34.5% n 116 52 64 The most common accreditations and school memberships include the Association of Christian Schools International (my employer) and the Association of Classical Christian Schools, though many schools were accredited by Cognia or some state or regional organization. The American Association of Christian Schools, Council on Educational Standards and Accountability, and Christian Schools International were also represented. Many schools are unaccredited, including a handful of homeschool co-ops or hybrid schools in the sample, including Covenant Christian Middle School and High School, a ministry of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Issaquah, WA. Doctrinally, virtually all schools mentioned affiliation with their church and many explicitly identified the Westminster Standards as their doctrinal standards. Some even require faculty to indicate agreement with the Westminster Standards, for example, Covenant Day School, a ministry of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, NC. Final thoughts This preliminary report does not capture the full extent of the work of PCA churches in ministering to families through education. Some churches with closely related schools are not represented in the PCA data (for example, Westminster Christian Academy and Westminster Presbyterian Church in Huntsville, AL). Other schools did not have information readily available on their websites. Still, this article provides some helpful descriptive information, especially as many churches consider beginning their own education ministries with the expansion of school choice across the country. Finally, I continue to keep The Covenant School and Covenant Presbyterian Church in my thoughts and prayers. I am grateful for the work of the PCA Foundation in establishing The Covenant Fund. Please consider donating to The Covenant Fund or to the March 27 Fund. Matthew Lee is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Fayetteville, AR and director of research at the Association of Christian Schools International. Related Posts: