It’s crucial for the pastor to maintain doctrinal purity while also exercising discernment against misleading teachings. Both are fundamental to nurturing and protecting the flock.

The introduction to this series explored the role of the pastoral apologist. We explored Paul’s charge to Timothy, highlighting the responsibilities and the profound calling of pastors to serve both as nurturers and defenders of faith. As I said in that article, the second and third articles will consider four facets of the pastoral apologist’s role: doctrine, discernment, defence, and discipleship. This article will explore the first two facets.
By closely examining these two aspects, we aim to understand how Timothy—and, by extension, pastoral apologists today—ought to undertake their task. This discussion will help us appreciate how doctrinal accuracy and discernment are essential in nurturing the flock, while also protecting them from false teachings and guiding them in truth.
Prioritising Doctrine
Paul’s instruction to Timothy is crucial. He commands him to “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3b). This verse will guide our discussion.
As J. Gresham Machen commented on it, “It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.”
So Paul instructs Timothy to remain in Ephesus, specifically to prevent others from teaching different doctrines. This calls attention to the importance Paul placed on doctrinal consistency and purity. The gospel isn’t subjective or flexible. For Paul, the gospel was a singular truth, applicable to all. The gospel isn’t some practical guideline that varies from person to person.
Christian doctrine, as Paul understood it, has an absolute nature. It’s more than thoughts or tips. For Paul, Christianity wasn’t merely a lifestyle or a set of practices; it was founded on definitive, core truths. His directive to Timothy wasn’t just about maintaining order; it’s about preserving the integrity of the gospel against distortions. Paul was dedicated to these truths. Pastors must be too. They’re essential for the life and health of the church.
Read More
Related Posts:

In modern America, Christians are thought be self-righteous spoil-sports who reject science, deny people the right to marry and sleep with whomever they want, and who think we alone are right. The reality is that if you identify yourself as a Christian you will encounter similar situations to those Peter is describing. People will curse and revile you because they hate Jesus and all he stands for. We must be prepared to give a defense whenever challenged, and yet to do so in the right way. The good news is that Jesus is still Lord, we are still his elect exiles, we are sprinkled with his blood, set apart for his purposes, and heirs to all of his promises. And we know this to be true because of a bloody cross and an empty tomb.

It is foolish to attempt to deny reality. The fact is Christians are going to be misunderstood, mistrusted, and persecuted precisely because we are believers in Jesus Christ. Those unbelievers, secularists, and pagans we encounter do not understand our faith in Christ. They feel no need whatsoever to believe in Jesus, and when they do understand what we believe, they openly reject it–especially Christian teaching about salvation being found only in Jesus (an exclusive truth claim), as well as Christian teaching about sexual ethics. Whenever this conflict between Christians and unbelievers occurs–and it will–how are we to respond?
In chapter 3 of his first epistle, Peter instructs us to seek to bring glory and honor to Jesus Christ in such situations, rather than focusing upon responding to any personal insults directed our way. Christians must learn how to deal with those who have power over us in the civil kingdom without being afraid of our oppressors, who will themselves answer to our Lord. We must learn to respond in such a way that we continually point those who are contentious toward us back to the suffering servant, Jesus. According to Peter, Christians must be prepared for these encounters with both the right answers and the right attitude.
Setting the Context
In our series on 1 Peter, so far, we have made our way into chapter three and we are presently considering Peter’s instructions to Christians of the Diaspora. To set the context, recall that Peter’s epistle is sent to a group of Christian exiles in Asia Minor, who have been displaced from their homes by a decree from Claudius, the previous Roman emperor. Peter begins his letter of encouragement to these struggling sojourners by reminding them that God has caused them to be born again, they have been set apart (sanctified) by God, and therefore sprinkled by the blood of Jesus–ensuring their sins are forgiven. Also, Christians are to live holy lives before the Lord so as to silence those critical of our faith.
Peter reminds his hearers that although they are facing difficult times from their pagan neighbors, in God’s sight, these people are elect exiles, a chosen race, and spiritual house, indwelt by the Spirit of the living God. Although they are citizens of Rome, they simultaneously possess a heavenly citizenship and are heirs to all the things promised them by God. But their heavenly citizenship will inevitably bring them into conflict with the unbelievers around them, and so the apostle seeks to prepare his readers to deal with those who reject Jesus, and who do not understand why Christians believe and do the things they do.
In 1 Peter 2:11-3:7, Peter addresses three of the main elements of the Greco-Roman household code–an unwritten code dating back perhaps to Aristotle, and which defines a number of the social relationships upon which Greco-Roman society was built. These relationships include the authority of civil government, the relationship between slaves and masters, as well as the relationship between husbands and wives. Christians too believe that these matters are important and God has addressed a number of them in his word. Yet, in each one of these societal relationships, and under current circumstances, Christians have little power or control. Peter’s readers were facing tremendous persecution from their pagan neighbors as the elect exiles of the Diaspora of Asia Minor.
Throughout section of his epistle, Peter exhorts Christians to submit to the Roman civil authorities, even those governors then persecuting Peter’s readers–except in those cases where civil authorities demand that Christians violate the will of God. When this happens, Christians are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). In order to make things bearable, Peter instructs Christian slaves and servants to submit to their masters, even if their masters are cruel. Finally Peter exhorts Christian wives to submit to their husbands, even if their husbands are not Christians. At the same time, Peter insists that Christian husbands not view their greater physical strength as a reason for believing their wives to be inferior–as the Greco-Roman household code held. Rather, Christian husbands are to see their wives as weaker vessels who require “understanding” (the knowledge that wives are to be treated as taught in Scripture), and who are worthy of honor–which means to be treated with the same respect to which all divine image bearers and co-heirs with Christ are entitled.
Christianity is Subversive
In the light of Christianity’s conflict with various aspects of the Greco-Roman household codes, we forget just how revolutionary Christianity was in the first century–especially in regard to sexual ethics and to societal relationships. In all three of these cases he mentions, Peter urges Christians to respect lawful authority and submit to it upon two grounds; 1). We submit to those in authority over us in order to be a witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated great humility in those times he suffered and was persecuted, and 2). We submit to those over us to deflate or remove any objections those in authority over us might have, so that Christians receive better treatment from the hands of those who oppress them.
In verses 21–25 of chapter 2, Peter paraphrases the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, which speaks of Jesus as the “suffering servant” of the Lord, whose example we are to follow. Peter writes,

. . . to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Since vengeance belongs to the Lord, Christians are not to retaliate in anger against those who persecute them. Instead, Christians are to follow the example of Jesus, and endure our suffering patiently, knowing that Jesus’s own suffering preceded his resurrection and ascension.
Beginning in verse 8 of chapter 3, Peter concludes his discussion of the Christian’s relationship to the Greco-Roman household code (going back to chapter 2:11) by summing up what a Christian’s attitude should be toward those who persecute them during difficult times. Peter then lists those things Christians ought to do so as to encourage and strengthen one another during the difficult times such as those Peter has been describing. The apostle confirms and illustrates these points by appealing to the words of Psalm 34–a Psalm to which Peter alludes throughout and quotes in this section of his letter.
A Unity of Mind
In verses 8-9, Peter writes, “finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.” When Christians manifest these qualities within the church, as well as in their dealings with those outside the church (especially those persecuting them) Christians are not as prone to division, and will mutually encourage one another–something very important during times and trial and persecution.
The first matter on Peter’s list is “unity of mind.” Christians are exhorted to be like-minded, which means they should believe the same things,[1] and work hard to avoid division within their own ranks. Sadly, struggling and persecuted Christians are prone to division because during trying times people’s sinful behavior shows itself in seeking to do things their way, while ignoring the circumstances of others. This is one of the reasons why “confessional” Protestant churches have extensive doctrinal standards as a means of being “like-minded.” Our own doctrinal standards are known as the “Three Forms of Unity,” because Reformed churches unite around confessing particular doctrines.
Next, Peter instructs Christians to be sympathetic to one another. Paul expands the meaning of this a bit in Romans 12:15, where he writes, “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” Christians should strive to put themselves in the shoes of their brothers and sisters, and genuinely care about the needs of others. Churches will be filled with people, who at any given time, are experiencing the great joys of life (marriages, births, anniversaries) while others endure the dreaded events of life (job loss, sickness, and death). These are things of which we are to be aware, and we are to respond accordingly. We “rejoice with those who rejoice,” and we “weep with those who weep.”
Peter also exhorts Christians to demonstrate “brotherly love” (philadelphoi). Peter’s main point here is that the church is the New Israel, and its members share a common brotherhood which unites us in deep and powerful ways–for many of us, our bond to our brothers and sisters in Christ can be deeper than our ties to family members. A church family is a wonderful thing. As God loves us in Jesus Christ (vertical), so too we are to love all those who are likewise the objects of God’s love (horizontal). This kind of brotherly love is not a shallow demonstration of love typical of much of American Christianity–those kumbaya moments when we just wanna hug everybody–but is manifest in concrete acts on behalf of others. We love our brothers and sisters when we watch their kids when there is a need, when we send meals or words of encouragement when someone is ill, or when we help those who need help (which is why we have deacons). This is not only a blessing to God’s people, it is a powerful witness to those outside the church who are watching our every move.
Christians are to have a tender heart, which is closely related to sympathy. A tender heart alerts us to the needs of others. In Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus, Paul ties this kind of tender-heartedness to forgiveness, which we are to extend to others who have wronged us, and which we receive back in return from those whom we have wronged. In Ephesians 4:32, Paul writes, “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”
Read More
Related Posts:

In summary, these changes would make the PCA a less “grassroots Presbyterian” denomination. They would have the effect of making Presbyteries weaker—weaker in comparison to the General Assembly and weaker in relation to their own judicial commissions. They would concentrate power at “the top” of our denomination, and place important powers of presbytery into the hands of “the few.” Presbyteries would be wise to reject these changes to our BCO.

Against Item 3
Among the items the 49th Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly sent down to Presbyteries for approval is Item 3 (Overture 25 from the Houston Metro Presbytery). This overture would amend chapter 15 of the Book of Church Order (BCO), changing the way that Presbytery judicial commissions handle cases.
Under the current system, Presbyteries may commit a judicial case to a commission, but the commission cannot conclude the case it is given. Rather, after trying the case, the commission must submit a full statement of the case and the judgment it rendered to Presbytery. Then, without debate, Presbytery either approves or disapproves the judgment.[1] To put it simply, the commission does all the work of the trial, but the Presbytery approves the final decision.
The proposed amendment would change two things. First, it would make the judgment of judicial commissions final: Presbytery would not have to approve anything. Second, it would require that complaints related to the case be heard by the commission that tried the case, not the Presbytery as a whole.[2]
These changes are not flashy or outwardly exciting. They intend to simplify our BCO, making all Presbytery commissions function similarly, and removing an extra step from our already complex judicial process. However, these changes would prove inadvertently detrimental to our church and her government.
In summary, these changes would make the PCA a less “grassroots Presbyterian” denomination. They would have the effect of making Presbyteries weaker—weaker in comparison to the General Assembly and weaker in relation to their own judicial commissions. They would concentrate power at “the top” of our denomination, and place important powers of presbytery into the hands of “the few.” Presbyteries would be wise to reject these changes to our BCO.
Grassroots Presbyterianism
The PCA is often described as a grassroots Presbyterian denomination. One of the easiest ways to understand what grassroots Presbyterianism means is to look at what our Book of Church Order says about two things: power and parity.
Power
Our BCO specifies that the power to make judgments affecting the life of the church belongs to the elders of the church acting jointly in a church court.[3] The Lord Jesus has committed this power exclusively to the courts of the church, and so in the PCA it belongs exclusively to Sessions, Presbyteries, and the General Assembly.[4]
Because Christ gave this power specifically to the courts of the church, courts can never delegate this power to some other body. Just as an elder cannot delegate his preaching responsibility to a non-elder, a church court cannot delegate their responsibility to make binding judgments of doctrine and discipline to some other body of Christians.[5]
Parity
The PCA BCO also specifies that there is parity across the various courts of the church. One often hears about one kind of parity in the PCA—the parity between ruling elder (RE) and teaching elder (TE). Though TEs have been given the special responsibility of Word and Sacrament ministry, they and REs are the same thing at the end of the day: elders.
The same can be said about church courts. Sessions, Presbyteries, and the General Assembly differ in certain respects, but at the end of the day they are all “Presbyteries” in that each is composed of presbyters.[6] This means that Sessions, Presbyteries, and the General Assembly all possess the same inherent powers (BCO 11-3, 4). A Session has just as much right to resolve a question of doctrine, or judge a discipline case, as the GA, and the decision of each is equally binding.[7]
Protecting the PCA
These features of grassroots Presbyterianism aren’t just interesting “distinctives” of the PCA. They have the very practical effect of guarding the church against hierarchical Presbyterianism and oligarchical Presbyterianism.[8] These two deformities of biblical polity aren’t just imagined boogeymen. They are legitimate dangers to the life of the church, and were instrumental to the decline of both the Northern and Southern Presbyterian churches in the 20th century.
In a hierarchical polity, a higher court has more power than a lower court, and ends up dominating it. There is no longer parity between the courts. In such a situation, the General Assembly would wield inordinate power over Presbyteries and Sessions, giving it great power to steer the entire denomination. Even the barest majority of the Assembly would be able to direct the church on any ecclesial matter.
In an oligarchical polity, power resides not in courts, but in committees.[9] The courts lose their exclusive right to exercise their God-given powers, having delegated them to smaller groups of men. These groups of men functionally replace the courts of the church. Even though power formally resides in the court, the court is held captive to the committees which practically exercise all the power.
All one needs to do to see the danger of these two polity dynamics is imagine that your “side” is in the minority at the General Assembly, or the minority of the various committees of the courts. Regardless of what “side” one is on, we all should want to preserve the grassroots nature of the PCA.
Protecting Grassroots Presbyterianism
The proposed amendment to BCO 15 would have two effects that damage grassroots Presbyterianism in the PCA. First, it would weaken Presbyteries in comparison to the General Assembly. Presbyteries would lose power that the Assembly would maintain—the power to correct any perceived error in the action of a judicial commission—making the Assembly a more powerful court. Presbyteries would then have to rely on the Assembly for something they formerly were able to handle themselves. Second, it would weaken Presbyteries in comparison to their judicial commissions. Presbyteries would have no natural mechanism to overrule a judicial commission, making commissions unduly powerful and functionally independent of the Presbytery itself. These effects would make the PCA both more hierarchical and more oligarchical—the Assembly would have more power than Presbyteries, and Presbytery judicial commissions would be functionally unaccountable to Presbyteries.
A Practical Example
These problems with Item 3 might seem theoretical at first glance, and perhaps minor in nature, but they would become very real when a messy discipline case comes before Presbytery. Imagine that a discipline case arises in your Presbytery and that Presbytery refers it to a judicial commission. Under the amended version of BCO 15, the commission conducts a trial, renders a judgment, and ends the matter. But what happens if it becomes apparent to the great majority of Presbytery that the commission erred in its judgment? These members can raise a complaint, but the same judicial commission would now hear and adjudicate the complaint. If they dismiss the complaint, then there is nothing else the members can do at the level of Presbytery. The commission’s judgments on the case and the complaint reign supreme. In a real way, the commission has replaced Presbytery in the exercise of judicial power. The commission has the power here, not Presbytery. The only recourse Presbytery has now is to raise the complaint to the General Assembly. Rather than having the natural power to overrule their commission, they must rely on what amounts to a more powerful court to rectify the matter.
Now consider the above scenario under the current version of BCO 15. The commission has erred. A great majority of Presbytery believes them to have erred.  To correct the error, these Presbyters need not complain to the commission and then raise the complaint to the General Assembly if that proves unsuccessful. All they need to do is not approve the recommended verdict of the commission. They then can either assign the case to a new commission, or try the case as a whole. Presbytery reigns supreme over its commission, and it does not need the General Assembly’s help or permission to do so.
The amendment to BCO 15 would lead to powerful judicial commissions and weak presbyteries, both of which would damage the PCA’s grassroots Presbyterianism.
An Amendment Without Good Reason
Item 3 originated as Overture 25 from Houston Metro Presbytery. In the overture, two main reasons are given for amending BCO chapter 15. First, it is said that requiring Presbytery to ratify the decision of a judicial commission is “a source of confusion and misapplication by Presbyteries.”[10] While I can readily sympathize with BCO-induced confusion, I have a hard time doing so with the matter of Presbytery judicial commissions. The very first sentence of chapter 15, which has the title “Ecclesiastical Commissions,” explicitly states that Presbytery judicial commissions operate differently than all other commissions, and references the paragraph within the chapter that sets forth the rules governing them.[11] Surely at least one member of Presbytery would think to read chapter 15 when Presbytery seeks to establish a judicial commission!
Of greater interest is the second reason given in the overture. It is said that requiring Presbytery to ratify the decision of a judicial commission runs counter to the purpose of commissions in general. Commissions are supposed to “deliberate upon and conclude the business referred to it,” but Presbytery judicial commissions are not fully allowed to do so.[12] This reason is a far stronger one, as it suggests that BCO 15 arbitrarily distinguishes between types of commissions, and therefore it arbitrarily restricts the power of Presbytery to address its own business.
Nevertheless, and contrary to Overture 25, there is good reason to distinguish between judicial and non-judicial commissions of Presbytery. The key difference between these two types of commissions is how they relate to the judgments that Presbytery makes. Consider a common commission of Presbytery: an ordination commission. It deliberates upon a number of matters relevant to the business of ordination (day, time, giving a charge, etc.) before concluding the business (actually ordaining a person). However, the commission does not judge that the man is ordainable. That judgment has already been determined by the Presbytery as a whole. The commission simply carries out the will of Presbytery.
The above example helps us to see why it is proper to distinguish between judicial and non-judicial commissions of Presbytery. In the case of the ordination commission, the Presbytery has already made a judgment on the matter at hand (ordination) and the commission enacts this judgment. In the case of a judicial commission, the Presbytery has not made a judgment on the matter at hand (the guilt or innocence of the accused). Indeed, it is part of the very nature of a judicial commission that Presbytery cannot have made any judgment at all—that is what a trial is for. Because there is no judgment, the commission has no right to enact any judgment. The judgment of the commission only becomes final when the Presbytery makes it their own.
Conclusion
The PCA is not perfect, and neither is our polity. But the glorious thing about our polity is that it can be more and more conformed to the command of Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ is King and Head of the Church, and He has appointed a government for it. It is our duty to conform our polity to the appointment of our King. While he reigns supreme over the Church as an exalted King, he administers his government through lowly elders. In his perfect wisdom, He has given the responsibility of judgment to elders acting together in courts, not acting individually. We cannot improve on this, and our polity should reflect these principles as clearly as possible.
Rather than clarifying these principles in our polity, Item 3 obscures them. Therefore, it should be defeated.
Stephen O’Neill is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Assistant Pastor of Hope PCA in Lawrenceville, NJ.

[1] Though the presbytery cannot debate the verdict of the commission, there is nothing in the BCO that would prevent questions being asked of the commission from the floor of Presbytery.
[2] Complaints are addressed in chapter 43 of the BCO. Notable for the purpose of this article is BCO 43-2, the first sentence of which reads: “A complaint shall first be made to the court whose act or decision is alleged to be in error.” With the current language, Presbytery, not the commission of Presbytery, receives and addresses complaints.
[3] BCO 3-2 distinguishes between the “several” powers and the “joint” powers. The “several” powers are those that can be exercised by an officer individually (i.e., “severed” from the court). Preaching is an example of a several power. The “joint” powers are always exercised in church courts in the form of judgments rendered by the courts.
[4] The classic example of this in Scripture is the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. There, after careful deliberation, “the apostles and the elders” render judgment on doctrinal matters that become binding on the churches.
[5] This point was stressed by James Henley Thornwell when the 1847 Old School General Assembly considered a report on the topic of ecclesiastical commissions. Thornwell agreed that ecclesiastical commissions could exercise any power the court possessed, but not as a delegated power. Commissions exercise the powers of the court as the court itself. The commission, in a sense, is the court. An unappreciated consequence of this is that all members of church courts are, de jure, members of commissions of the court. See James Henley Thornwell, “The General Assembly,” Southern Presbyterian Review 1, vol. 2 (September 1847): 83-85. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/590be125ff7c502a07752a5b/t/5fceb7dbb4902412734c1a64/1607383005407/Thornwell%2C+James+Henley%2C+The+General+Assembly.pdf
[6] BCO 10-1 states: The Church is governed by various courts, in regular gradation, which are all, nevertheless, Presbyteries, as being composed exclusively of presbyters.
[7] This is why higher courts are instructed to grant great deference to lower courts (BCO 39-3), and why higher courts only take up the business of lower courts under specific circumstances. Either a lower court asks the higher court to take up a matter, or some allegation of error is made against the lower court and filed in due order.
[8] The PCA’s first three stated clerks, Morton Smith, Paul Gilchrist, and Roy Taylor, have all written about the grassroots nature of the PCA’s polity in opposition to hierarchy and oligarchy. Dr. Smith’s “How is the Gold Become Din,” and Dr. Taylor’s “Non-Hierarchical Presbyterianism” can be found on pcahistory.org. Dr. Gilchrist’s “Distinctives of Presbyterian Church Government” can be obtained from the PCA historical center, though it is not on the website.
[9] I use committee in a non-technical sense here, referring to any subset of a body that has been given some task, role, or power by the larger body. True committees, commissions, boards, and agencies all fall under this broader use of “committee.”
[10] Overture 25 can be found in the 49th General Assembly Commissioner Handbook, 97.
[11] The sentence reads: “A commission differs from an ordinary committee in that while a committee is appointed to examine, consider and report, a commission is authorized to deliberate upon and conclude the business referred to it, except in the case of judicial commissions of a Presbytery appointed under BCO 15-3.”
[12] Commissioner Handbook, 97. The overture references the previously cited sentence, but excludes the special provision for Presbytery judicial commissions.
Related Posts: