Written by Benjamin T. Inman |
Monday, March 13, 2023
Will the Presbyterian Church in America allow the teaching and practice of the Church Year to be promulgated in its bounds? I believe that my essay dismantles the recently offered exegetical argument. I believe that my essay removes the plausibility of the recently offered ‘Confessional’ opinion. I believe that my essay identifies the corrupting influence for the PCA promised by this model of piety. The controversy must turn, as TE LeCroy recognizes, on whether the Church Year is “hostile to the system” or “strikes at the vitals of religion.”

This is an invitation to controversy; my full-length contribution is available here. I offer a response to what I perceive to be a high point of advocacy for the Church Year in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). During my 30 years in the denomination, without difficulty I have politely abstained around various holiday practices. I felt neither desire nor obligation to be obstreperous. The controversy needed now is not about bits and bobs of calendars and services. This is about a model of piety being smuggled into the PCA.
After twenty years of unruffled tolerance for various particulars, I read the following words from a Senior Pastor in the PCA:
“We as Christians cannot keep our heads in the sand and pretend that we don’t need a Christian calendar to provide balance to the worldly calendars all around us. If we do not offer a counter-formation to the liturgies of the world, then we as the church will be producing disciples that are no different from those in the world around us. We will be self-centered, greedy, entertainment hungry, individualistic, sex crazed, bloodthirsty robots. And isn’t this who we are already? Aren’t these the kinds of disciples our churches are already churning out? Is this what we want to be like? What we want our children to be like?”
I take no offense at the accusation of denominational degeneracy. I haven’t read that in ByFaith magazine, but some things will never be published in some places. It is a stark assessment, yet I doubt many of us would dismiss it without some thought. Is the PCA so indifferent that presbyteries and General Assembly aren’t marked with the weeping and pleading that matches such a claim? A permutation is a possibility. The PCA is far larger than my familiarity; so I’ll not receive the ill report, nor dismiss the substantial man who brought it. Eyes open for now.
I do take offense at the claim made for the Church Year. Compared to ever so many moments in April or December, this calls for interruption. However legitimate may be the diagnosis, the prescription is quackery. Of course, one person’s quackery is another’s alternative treatment or traditional healing practice. The PCA’s understanding of the wholesome and the healing is expressed in the Westminster Standards. How could anyone with significant knowledge of the Westminster Standards – assuming that knowledge is agreement – offer the regular and careful observance of the Church Year as an urgent and necessary tool for sanctification? The divines all grew up under the Church Year, yet they neglected to include something so necessary for godliness?
I leave the author his modesty for now. Such a “gotcha” quote should not be bandied about without context. Lacking context, you might think the quote a bit of ex tempore opinion. You might focus on the laudable concern which provokes it. You might think it a strident comment from someone neither learned nor honored in the PCA. Without context, it might be framed as merely “overemphasis” or “a blemish of excess not corruption.” For 30 years, I have not commented loudly on the ephemera of eclectic Presbyterianism. This is not the bit of gristle politely set aside as you enjoy the steak. I am commenting now. I am controverting now. I am calling out the context now.[1]
My essay here is a rejoinder to Tim LeCroy’s “A Reformed Defense of the Church Year.” Such an earnest defense deserves a proper attack, rather than the piecemeal and spontaneous discussion that appears to have prompted it. He offers a Biblical case, which involves rather common specious claims. He provides an inadequate historical case to provide plausibility for his ‘Confessional’ opinion. The latter, he does not argue so much as assert. He assumes the Church Year is valuable for piety. It is not just true or allowable. It is useful.
Read More
[1] To examine the context of the here unattributed quote, you will need to read my essay here.
Related Posts:

Written by Benjamin T. Inman |
Friday, February 24, 2023
We need the outwards means that Christ actually uses. Where has he put his promises? How does he give us the benefits of redemption? It is appalling to assert that sanctification by faith urgently needs something other than what Christ has appointed. This is about how is it even possible, and how is it actually accomplished– that faith in Christ can deliver us from fruitless lives of being “anything but faithful, self-denying, cross-bearing Christians.”

That was Mardi Gras, Fat Tuesday. My special needs daughter’s trainer gave her some red beads in the morning. That was kind of one, and delightful to both. We didn’t discuss penitential practices, or the twisted reliability of the-day-before-lent. Just a day on the calendar. Just shiny beads. Yes, I thanked her.
The next day I drove into town, past the Anglican Church: “Ash Wednesday: Drive-Thru hours 12-1 pm and 4-5 pm, Service at 5:30.” I’m new in this town and haven’t yet met the priest. I have only done some drive-by praying. I have no idea what to make of that sign. Somebody’s circus, somebody’s monkeys. For that clergy in that building, it was most certainly Ash Wednesday. What does it mean for them on Thursday?
Thursday is the day when I think about my two dear Anglican brothers. I think. I do not text the thought, though it would make them laugh. I am not making light of their discipleship. I know they think of me on this day too– fond thoughts edging over towards how immovable I am on this stuff. It’s me; it’s Thursday; it’s not a big deal; it just won’t budge.
But then, I read this from a fellow minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). He and I have communicated about my concerns before. He wrote this originally for all and sundry, though now he publishes it again for the members of his new congregation. He explains that ashes for repentance is something people actually did when open fires were ubiquitous to civilization. Perhaps today we would follow their example by licking an electrical outlet. Or we could anoint with embalming fluid. He carefully acknowledges that what we now do at the drive thru only emerged in the 11th century. He then goes on to speak of embodied rituals and their necessity for our sanctification.
He is not fooling around; he knows that it is an old practice, not an ancient practice. Accordingly, his reflection produces a flexible conclusion: this is like something seen in the Bible, and a lot of professing Christians have done it in the past– so, it is okey-dokey but not mandatory for congregations to do it now. Perhaps his session promulgates this ritual for those under their care. Perhaps he performs it in his office as their pastor. Perhaps some of them do not participate. This is an elective practice for Christians. No, not in the Bible, but cherished by some people who have high regard for the Bible. It is more than naming a day, but also less.
What’s The Problem?
Easter. Lent. Fat Tuesday. Ash Wednesday. I even made up my own name for Thursday. This is not about naming days. This is not about despising disciples in earlier centuries from whom we have received the legacy of their tenacity. I am not scandalized or deprived of a gleam of my thankful wonder by thinking that the people who blessed me did some stupid stuff. I am encouraged to think some folks may regard me similarly. I’m not bent out of shape because “that is not a very presbyterian thing to do.” Let all the jerseys be so smeared with mud and blood, that we can’t discriminate with our comments from the sidelines. There are differences and details, but don’t muck around like this:
We live in a culture that is constantly barraging us with rituals. We are moved along like sheep by the media and other forces. We participate in the Super Bowl, an event that is laden with ritual. We do Fourth of July, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day – and most of these rituals involve opening up the pocket book to buy things. We participate in sporting events of all kinds, which are rituals. We do Valentine’s day, Mother’s Day, and Father’s Day – all rituals. And yet even though our secular culture hits us with rituals all day long, seven days a week, and twice on Sunday, many of us Protestants and Evangelicals are wary of rituals in the church! In light of everything the culture uses to shape and form us, what we need in the church is not less rituals but more! We need rituals to shape and form us to counteract the forces in the culture which are forming us into anything but faithful, self-denying, cross-bearing Christians.
Ritual is a profound and trendy topic. My daughter is a professional philosopher, and she has schooled me a bit. It is of interest to professional philosophers lately. She doesn’t think my views of intinction or the call to worship or Matthew 18 are just persnickety opinions about details and criteria. She and I both are nodding with this impassioned paragraph about those cultural rituals. The real-world power and trajectories are weighty.
Most certainly, believers need something “to counteract the forces in the culture.” Romans 12:1ff and similar texts indicate that just such “greater than” power and influence is necessary in sanctification. The PCA’s view of wholesome religion thrums with the same urgency: “What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?” (SC 85).
That dire question has a stout and energetic rejoinder. “To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.” No, under the pressures of our wicked society, we do not need to multiply liturgical rituals.
We need the outwards means that Christ actually uses. Where has he put his promises? How does he give us the benefits of redemption? It is appalling to assert that sanctification by faith urgently needs something other than what Christ has appointed. This is about how is it even possible, and how is it actually accomplished– that faith in Christ can deliver us from fruitless lives of being “anything but faithful, self-denying, cross-bearing Christians.”
This is not about being unpresbyterian. This is not about naming days.
What’s the Other Problem?
I am heartened about the point of agreement: we want Christians to live worthy of their calling. I am distressed at this out-of-the-ancient-blue prescription. We agree on how high the stakes are, and the necessity of every believer laying his cards on the table. Our Standards exempt no believer. There is no Christian freedom athwart this point: God requires “the diligent use” by everyone. Sanctification is serious business and it must contend with the atmospheric influence of the world, the flesh and the devil– peer pressure, systemic influence and worldly rituals. Given the glory of sanctification in Christ, of course there is urgency.
How then can a faithful pastor present something so powerful as optional? We must counteract the worldly rituals– on that we agree. If more rituals are a necessity for the spiritual good of every sheep, how could a pastor fail to urge participation on each and every one? How could one leave them bereft without more rituals? Isn’t that neglect? I am ashen faced at the thought of telling my bi-polar nephew that his meds are optional.
I am aghast at the illogical tolerance that wafts from mixing this 11th century smoldering into this 21st century muck. “Ash Wednesday and the imposition of ashes is one of those helpful rituals that push against the world, the flesh, and the devil.” Helpful? That’s an anticlimax. One of? Apparently, there are others to add. The imposition of ashes by a minister of the gospel is not for every Christian. Are we at the post-modernism part yet?
Does this mean that– which rituals are indifferent, but we must multiply other rituals? Do we need to make things more fitting for people who are ash intolerant? Is this the church’s task, inventing rituals? Thoughtfully the church describes the dire situation. Winsomely, she exposits the theological provisions. Then she earnestly urges, “Don’t just stand there; do something.” And she comforts: “Don’t worry, we’ll make something up.”
Given that worldly rituals are a malicious influence, surely the Word of God provides all the counterweight needful for life and godliness. According to our Standards, are there rituals with such influence? Are rituals so prescribed in our Standards? How on earth can Christians be shaped more by Christ in heaven (Col 3:1ff) than by the rituals of the society we inhabit?
This is about how Christians are enabled to honor Christ with faith and repentance in the world. This is not about naming days in the calendar. This is about the vitals of religion.
Benjamin T. Inman is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and a member of Eastern Carolina Presbytery.
Related Posts:

Written by Benjamin T. Inman |
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
I disagree with his assertions about Overture 15. I leave argument aside. I disagree that concerns expressed in terms of the reform of the church deserve to be greeted as malicious. I leave argument aside. I disagree that mendacity has been the substance of the controversy around Johnson, et. al. I leave argument aside. I disagree that the PCA should construe coming advocacy around officers, race, and worship as a time to discern who is honest rather than how to honor Christ. I leave argument aside.  I disagree with TE LeCroy’s admonition for the PCA. I do not think he is lying.

Teaching Elder Tim LeCroy has published a heart-felt and scathing admonition for the PCA. He is grieved. He speaks of many liars, many unrepentant liars, particular organizations which have been undeterred by his rebukes. He warns the PCA– not just about deception, but real degeneracy.
I write to express my disagreement and to invite others to disagree. I think that TE LeCroy is mistaken. He will think that I am mistaken. We disagree. I do not accuse him of prevarication. If he follows my lead here, he may change his mind– then, we would no longer disagree. I would be shocked if he revealed himself to have lied. I don’t think he lied. I think he disagreed.
Disagreements are not surprising, and they are not un-Christian. No, they are not even un-Presbyterian. The scathing admonition might be faulted by some, as “intemperate.” Yes, that is un-Presbyterian, though the very word is perhaps one of our pets. Presbyterians may have single-handedly kept the word from obselescence. We don’t do intemperate speech, but we mention it when necessary. You know that we are serious about “intemperate.” We vote on it.
A Disagreement
“Memorial and Pastor Johnson tried to get people to listen to explanations of their ministries and their theology.” And, apparently, some people agreed with their representations; specifically he cites the Standing Judicial Commission. Others, LeCroy laments, stopped their ears and refused to listen. I do not have a particularly wide knowledge of the PCA, but I can substantially confirm the point, if not the opprobrium attached to it.
I have encountered numerous men over the last couple of months with a similar narrative:
In 2018 I started listening to Johnson, et. al., sympathetically, and then in 2022 the cumulative weight of my attention and patience brought me to a slow but definite position. I stopped listening to understand and interact; instead, I started listening to counter these developments in the church.
I think this sounds like the reasonable people who ended up, well, disagreeing with Johnson’s claims. At some point they stopped simply listening, but that is not to be faulted.
“That is not to say that there weren’t many people of good will with honest concerns and questions. Some of these folks pursued their concerns and questions in the right way: by engaging in honest dialog, following Presbyterian process, and seeking to understand and believe the best about Johnson and Memorial. Some of these folks were persuaded of the overall orthodoxy of Johnson while holding some valid concerns. Others, while not persuaded, continued to engage in an honest and charitable way.”
So, there was a disagreement. In the midst of honesty, dialog and process– some people concluded Johnson, et. al., are orthodox and others concluded they are heterodox. That is disagreement about a serious matter. Somehow, the ugly conclusion was still charitable and honest.
What is a charitable and honest (both) demeanor for concluding a minister is unwholesome? Might one disagree at this point? Must one consent silently to those who think otherwise? Might one express– temperately– a dour and unhappy and honest side of a dialog?
There is one matter about which there is no disagreement. Disagreement does not give license for lies. Disagreements are serious matters. Lies are wicked.
Not JUST A Disagreement
TE LeCroy has not given a heart-felt vindication for his side of the disagreement. Nor has he published a scathing analysis and criticism of the contrary view. This is not just a disagreement. He has assailed “a vast majority,” “many of them pastors and elders.” He has put his finger on names: “The Aquila Report, The Gospel Reformation Network, and Reformation 21, . . . Presbycast.”
More than differing with others, rather he has accused:
“. . . communicating an array of false information . . spreading false information . . . refused to acknowledge their error . . . continued to repeat the lies . . . doubled down on the lies . . . They stopped their ears against any just defense.” Disagreements are serious matters. Lies are wicked.
What is the difference between a disagreement and a lie? I disagree with TE LeCroy’s representation of Greg Johnson. His list of lies disseminated in this conflict is recognizable to me. I have heard all of those assertions– with nuances which are absent from LeCroy’s terse catalog:
” . . . that Johnson, doesn’t believe homosexual temptation is a sin, that he denies sanctification, that he says that homosexuals can never change, that he calls himself a gay Christian, that he identifies with his sin; that the PCA is ordaining unrepentant homosexuals, that the courts of the PCA have gone liberal and are ineffective to engage in true church discipline, that there are those in the PCA who are advocating for celibate partnerships.”
I have listened (and relistened) to a good bit from Greg Johnson and read his prose. My familiarity with Johnson’s voice makes these purported lies each quite plausible to me– if my familiarity with the dispute is allowed to remember nuances. I have heard these assertions before, though with nuances. I recognize them, although, here, they were unadorned with nuances. They were rather different, but they were not lies. I think, maybe, Mr. LeCroy and I differ on this. I disagree with him. I don’t think he is lying.
A Disagreement about Nuances
It seems Mr. LeCroy acknowledges that people may disagree about these matters:
“. . . valid concerns and frustrations . . . Yet, none of my frustrations or concerns amounted to the level of heretical belief or practice. They were at the level of things that myself and others believed were unwise and unhelpful, but not worthy of censure or excommunication.”
He suggests something of a spectrum: unwise > unhelpful > heretical practice > heretical belief > censure > excommunication.. Is the use of such a scale merely as mechanical as reading a thermometer? Might people charitably and honestly differ on this? Is the contrast really between agreeing or lying? Is that a nuance?
Mr. LeCroy specifies what he found predominantly unhelpful or unwise with Johnson, et. al:
”They . . . expected mature believers to read the nuance in the things they said and did. But understanding of nuance is not something one can expect these days. These days nuance is treated as the enemy of the truth.”
Johnson, et. al., required people to understand their nuances, but nuance attracts an adversarial attention. Nuance somehow short circuits truthfulness.
Is nuance the enemy of truth? Or does nuance fail to guarantee agreement? When people assert that a particular nuance is a distinction without a difference, or an instance of equivocation, or a fallacious appeal— are they expressing their disagreement or lying through their teeth? Disagreement is a serious matter. Lying is wicked. Nuance is not the distance between them.
A Demonization of Disagreement
Mr. LeCroy’s grief is fitting. A historic congregation has departed our communion, and it has done so with articulate recrimination. The truth of their assertions deserve sober consideration as the PCA moves forward. There is no duty to agree with such assertions, but there is a duty to take them seriously.
“I believe there will be a reckoning for all these lies. For those who have won this battle, this is not the way battles should be won in the Church of Jesus Christ.” Those are strong words. Again, only a fool would not weigh them and reweigh them. Remember how slow we can be when corrected.
I don’t have the impression that many people believe a battle was won. Partisans think that decisive conflict was avoided. The questions are not actually settled; the acrimony obviously lingers. People do lie, but people also disagree. Those who have avoided the battle must recognize that confusing prevarication and disagreement will most certainly reap more than a dust devil or two.
If deliberation is reduced to discernment of which speakers are lying– what confidence should you have in any vote? Unless you get your way. Consider the revulsion of getting your way and wondering if some in the majority were lying. Or does that matter if you’re getting your way? How horrible if a court of Christ’s church replaces disagreement and deliberation with distrust and dominant voices.
I imagine demons both agree and disagree dishonestly.
Mr. LeCroy goes on in his admonition. I disagree with his assertions about Overture 15. I leave argument aside. I disagree that concerns expressed in terms of the reform of the church deserve to be greeted as malicious. I leave argument aside. I disagree that mendacity has been the substance of the controversy around Johnson, et. al. I leave argument aside. I disagree that the PCA should construe coming advocacy around officers, race, and worship as a time to discern who is honest rather than how to honor Christ. I leave argument aside.
I disagree with TE LeCroy’s admonition for the PCA. I do not think he is lying.
I encourage others to do the same.
Benjamin T. Inman is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is member of Eastern Carolina Presbytery.
Related Posts:

Written by Benjamin T. Inman |
Friday, January 21, 2022
The rubric of Overture 23 is a common sense Presbyterian adaptation to our context. It does not promulgate a stricter sexual ethic or a narrower view of sanctification. It specifies qualifications for office exactly where they may well be misunderstood or challenged. Our society has largely and even unconsciously adopted new corrupt assumptions about homosexuality… Aspirants for office who do not share our convictions should have clarity from the start: the PCA is not congenial to what is affirmed in various evangelical connections. This is not shocking news in general, although it may be acutely offensive given the topic specified. Some people hate this more than predestination.

A discussion offered for the deliberation of Eastern Carolina Presbytery(TE Benjamin T. Inman, Assistant Pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Fuquay-Varina)
(I address an argument recently offered for voting down Overtures 23 & 37. While I have not heard it expanded so directly, it has been implied in various discussions. It strikes the target.
“In the past, we have trusted local sessions entirely as to the character of their candidate they are putting forward for licensure and ordination. I don’t want that to become a practice on the floor of Presbytery, where a young man may stand before a room full of men he does not know and don’t know him. The local session is the right place to determine fitness for office with regard to the character requirements set forth in scripture.”
It is heartening to hear reference to the actual point of the amendments. While Overture 23 places specific attention on homosexuality, neither amendment addresses pastoral practice regarding any notorious sin. Rather than the nurture of members or even the discernment for receiving members, both amendments address only the qualifications and examinations for office. Sadly, the quoted argument is at odds with our polity and demonstrates our need for reform–all the more urgent in our corrupt context. The offered amendments for the Book of Church Order (BCO) chapters 16 and 21 stipulate just such reform.
Why These Overtures Matter
23
Overture 23 gives a rubric for homosexuality in assessing officer candidates. It does not address the controversy of Revoice, although it does represent a view in contrast to some points elaborated in those conferences. This rubric would not be cited for the pending SJC case about Memorial PCA’s hosting of the first Revoice conference. Qualification for office is simply not relevant there. Nor does it attempt an after-the-fact reconsideration of the recent SJC decision regarding Missouri Presbytery’s investigation of TE Greg Johnson. One member of that SJC panel has opined from his well informed position that the amendment of overture 23 would not have changed the outcome. Despite the furor, sex and such is not the point of the amendments.
The rubric of Overture 23 is a common sense Presbyterian adaptation to our context. It does not promulgate a stricter sexual ethic or a narrower view of sanctification. It specifies qualifications for office exactly where they may well be misunderstood or challenged. Our society has largely and even unconsciously adopted new corrupt assumptions about homosexuality. Increasingly, evangelical opinion and institutions demonstrate an assimilation to these aberrant views; consequently, there is good reason for the PCA to specify its qualifications for office. Aspirants for office who do not share our convictions should have clarity from the start: the PCA is not congenial to what is affirmed in various evangelical connections. This is not shocking news in general, although it may be acutely offensive given the topic specified. Some people hate this more than predestination.
More happily, the PCA too can repeat the apostle and say of candidates for office, “and such were some of you.” Men for whom homosexuality appears among the “earthly” things which they must put to death (Col 3:5), these men should have clarity as well. They should know: no shame or suspicion will attend being an example to the flock of God’s “perfect patience” to the “foremost” of sinners (1 Tim 1:14), though they replace Paul’s ringing “blasphemer” with a frank “homosexual.” They should be no more embarrassed in disciplining homosexual sin than was Paul in excommunicating men “that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim 1:20).
37
Overture 37 directs presbyteries for examinations in the ordination of teaching elders. The topic is NOT homosexual Christians in the PCA but PCA officers in a precipitously degenerating society. As the ferment regarding racism, degradation of women and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable pricks our conscience with a longing for past healing and future fidelity, the PCA does well to question the rigor of officer examination. A renewed purpose and more careful process is recommended not only by doubt about the past. It is all the more commonsensical in a society with diminishing moral constraints in general, a society which is arguably most conspicuous in normalizing sexual corruption by simplistic correlation of consent with subjective identification.
The amendment of BCO 21 stipulates careful examination with attention to notorious matters (including but not circumscribed by sins sexual, relational, racial and financial). The specified matters have become observably notorious over the recent many years in the scandalous failures of Evangelical leaders, congregations and institutions. The scandal cannot be blunted: the adjectives evangelical, Spirit-filled — even Biblical — are no longer reassuring public marks of professed identity. Evangelical sins grieve us to remember semper reformanda,– which includes both the mysterious fecundity often called revival or renewal, and the clarifying reassertion of principles and practices regretfully neglected.
Presbyterian polity– practiced by faith, and not by rote— is our denomination’s declared method to deter such shamefulness and harm. We believe that presbyterian governance– which is to say presbyterian ministry and mission– is not necessary for the existence of the church but for the well being of the church (BCO 1.7). If the church did not exist, it could not be so powerfully and publicly shamed; the issue is her well-being, her wholesomeness. Without disdain for the numerical majority of evangelicals who differ on the matter, we rightly and with expectation pray that God will bless their well-being without presbytery. The Presbyterian Church in America, by conviction– as grateful heirs of the church that replaced Bishops with Presbyteries– we claim to stake the matter on the officers serving rightly and faithfully in submissive plurality. For the PCA, the qualifications of officers are a fundamental for fidelity. This is why the amendments of Overtures 23 and 37 matter.
Why These Overtures are Reform
As do many, the argument here under review assumes that the BCO is presently sufficient. Sadly, it actually assumes practice at odds with that very standard. A question put to our presbytery must not be decided by contradiction of our standards– in the guise of wisdom. While I will go on to criticize it, I appreciate the argument’s attention to the actual point of the amendments. In this, it serves deliberation well. For better consideration, I repeat it:
“In the past, we have trusted local sessions entirely as to the character of their candidate they are putting forward for licensure and ordination. I don’t want that to become a practice on the floor of Presbytery, where a young man may stand before a room full of men he does not know and don’t know him. The local session is the right place to determine fitness for office with regard to the character requirements set forth in scripture.”
The argument’s logic is coherent and champions a laudable concern; however, it ignores our polity. Look, there, that’s what a rubber stamp looks like when it has been well used. By arguing earnestly in the opposite direction, it demonstrates our need for reformation of both order and ardor.Read More