Doctrine matters. We live in times when all truth is under attack, especially orthodox Christian teaching. The higher courts of the church are essential to preserve truth and to ensure that the church’s ministers teach and live in accordance with sound doctrine. Ruling elders are part of the firewall that protects the sheep of today and tomorrow from error and wolves. 

Some presbyters seem to believe that entering the arena of ecclesial/denominational controversy is—to quote the military supercomputer in the prescient 1983 teen movie WarGames—“a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” In the film, the drama was supplied by the assumption that thermonuclear combat led to the mutually assured destruction of all participants.
A ruling elder’s participation in the courts of the church, though, need not necessitate mutual assured destruction, to stick with Cold War imagery. Rather, the goal is the peace and purity of the church; the hope is divinely assured edification and protection of Christ’s flock. The Great Shepherd rules the church, but he does it mediately through weak and fallible men—presbyters—who are always plural in the New Testament and in biblical presbyterian order. This means power is not concentrated in one or a few elders or (as we shall see below) in one type of elders. Weakness and fallibility (also known as the fact of total depravity) demand the plurality of elders and the accountability of courts we find modeled in Acts and the Epistles.
The fact of total depravity means the ruling elder’s service in any level of the church courts can be less than enjoyable. A newly ordained ruling elder may soon be shocked by discipline cases and thorny issues in his local church. Romantic notions of the eldership are quickly dispelled. There may be trouble enough “at home,” but a presbyterian ruling elder’s responsibilities and concerns ought not end at the local church’s property lines.
Called To Enter Into The Conflict
“It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door”—so said Bilbo to his nephew. One might say the same to a ruling elder sent for the first time to presbytery or General Assembly, even though attending the higher courts of a presbyterian church may not be physically dangerous—apart from hours of sitting in uncomfortable chairs! The biggest casualty is lost time for ruling elders who are usually otherwise employed in the service of occupation or family when the courts meet. There are yet more participation costs. Showing up regularly can get you tasked with more responsibilities (such as committee service) since ruling elders are often in short supply. There is a steep learning curve for most ruling elders and staying in touch with and informed about the wider church is tough for a ruling elder. Little about the church courts is familiar, especially to a new ruling elder. The rules and processes of church courts can be bewildering. And there’s controversy and conflict. The problems of other churches and pastors and disagreements about doctrine and practice are anything but pleasant.
Gresham Machen famously wrote, “In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” The church doesn’t need men who look for fights or love to fight, but she does need ruling elders who bring common sense and practical experience to the courts…and who are willing to fight for truth and good order when needed. Total depravity means the need often arises.
Can’t pastors (teaching elders in Presbyterian Church in America parlance) be trusted to handle the affairs of the wider church? History says otherwise, and the polity of the PCA requires otherwise. The PCA has arguably the most robust principle of the parity of elders among conservative presbyterian denominations.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

These words ended the opening paragraph of J. Gresham Machen’s 1923 classic Christianity and Liberalism. Fighting may be defensive or it may involve attack. When today’s news media wish to portray political rhetoric or reactions in a negative light, they often say that one side or group (nearly always the conservative side) has pounced on some person, thing, or issue. An Associated Press story from 1932 shows that neither the shallow sensationalizing of “religious” news nor the pejorative use of the term “fundamentalist” is anything new. They may as well have said MACHEN POUNCES:

“Stirs Churchmen”…and the pot?

DENVER, May 30, (A.P.) … An attack on policies and government of the Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A. by one of its outstanding leaders exploded a bombshell today in the ranks of the churchmen gathered here.
The attack was made by Dr. J. Gresham Machen of Philadelphia, recognized as the guiding spirit of the church’s fundamentalist faction.
Speaking before the congregation of First Avenue Presbyterian Church in Denver yesterday, Dr. Machen said “the present condition of the Presbyterian Church is an offense against God.”
(Philadelphia Inquirer, Tues. May 31. 1932)
There’s little context to show why Machen felt put upon by a decade of liberalizing declension1 in the northern mainline church. A casual reader might have assumed Machen was just some angry crank. That a sermon preached in the run-up to a presbyterian general assembly could make national news shows how much things have changed in the USA—the mainline still seemed to run the “Christian” nation of America in 1932.
Well, Machen did feel put upon and so “put it on” the moderate-liberal elites who ran the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. You may, like us, question the advisability of (church) political sermons on the Lord’s Day, but times were different. Apparently, such things were more usual 90-100 years ago. There were “really important things” about which men were most definitely fighting. Here’s how the local paper gleefully covered the pugilistic pastor:
The chief event of Sunday, however, was the appearance of Dr. Machen in the pulpit of the First Avenue Presbyterian Church of Denver, whose pastor is Dr. Thomas Murray, Dr. Machen preached two powerful sermons. He was quoted in Monday morning’s Rocky Mountain News under the following headlines: “Presbyterian Heads Flayed by Churchman … Dr. J. Gresham Machen Fiercely Assails Attitude of Modernists … Directs Suspicion … Asserts Unfaithfulness Is Being Concealed in Reign of Secrecy … Bitter Attack on the Presbyterian Church … “ One of the paragraphs of the news Item read: “Scarcely any branch of the church’s administrative bodies escaped the withering fire of his criticism. In harsh language he assailed the actions of men high in the Councils of the Church.” The whole effect of the manner in which this story was handled was to make it appear that Dr. Machen’s message was other in spirit and content than it was. It was not bitter-unless the truth is bitter. It certainly was not harsh, but it was unpleasant to many because it brought out into public view the very dangerous condition of the Church, which many people want to ignore, ostrich-like. His words were a needful and salutary purgative. In order that the readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY may know the exact form in which quotations of Dr. Machen’s sermon were handed to the press, the text is reproduced on Page 4. It is an undeniable fact that, on Monday morning as newsboys at the door of the Auditorium shouted out “Dr. Machen makes bitter attack on Presbyterian Church,” a number of tempers went up to the boiling point.2
Major ecclesial figures sometimes called press conferences in 1932…and reporters even came. Sermon summaries were provided to the papers, and we have a friendlier and fuller picture from a publication with which Machen was associated—the “old” Christianity Today (as referenced in the above quote):
Dr. Machen’s Denver Sermon
FOR the information of my readers we are reproducing the exact text of news-summary of Dr. Machen’s sermon in the First A venue Presbyterian Church of Denver, during the recent assembly. This is the only form in which the sermon was released to the press.

The freedom of the church is the freedom to demand that its members and ministers adhere to its own biblical standards. The church is not the state (nor is it backed by the state’s power) and has no power of enforcement or compulsion except to declare truth and declare who is a member. 1  “It would, indeed, be an interference with liberty for a church, through the ballot box or otherwise, to use the power of the state to compel men to assent to the church’s creed or conform to the church’s program. To that kind of intolerance I am opposed with all my might and main.”

But if the existing Protestant church organizations, with some notable exceptions, must be radically reformed before they can be regarded as truly Christian, what, as distinguished from these organizations, is the function of a true Christian Church?
Machen believed that “true” churches were increasingly rare in his day, but he also believed such churches (all far from perfect) were still the most important institutions in the world. He went on to remind his readers what such churches were to be doing and how they should be doing it.
Ned B. Stonehouse, Machen’s biographer, dubbed him posthumously (after the Bunyan character) “Mr. Valiant-for Truth par excellence.” Here Machen says the church must be radically for the truth:
In the first place, a true Christian Church, now as always, will be radically doctrinal. It will never use the shibboleths of a pragmatist skepticism. It will never say that doctrine is the expression of experience; it will never confuse the useful with the true, but will place truth at the basis of all its striving and all its life. Into the welter of changing human opinion, into the modern despair with regard to any knowledge of the meaning of life, it will come with a clear and imperious message. That message it will find in the Bible, which it will hold to contain not a record of man’s religious experience but a record of a revelation from God.
Because he believed the Bible was true, perspicuous, and sufficient Machen warned his readers against the wiles of those resembling other Bunyan characters like the pragmatic Mr. By-ends and Worldly Wiseman. The church, armed with divine revelation, would be radical.
The truth would set the church free, but the church would never be free to do or believe just anything she wanted. The truth demanded intolerance:
In the second place, a true Christian Church will be radically intolerant. At that point, however, a word of explanation is in place. The intolerance of the Church, in the sense in which I am speaking of it.
Read More
Related Posts:

Between November and March, Sauls’ views changed in a way that made him incompatible with the PCA: He became (or revealed himself to be) an ecclesial egalitarian, meaning he believes that all of the roles and offices in the church are open to men and women. When the face of a denomination changes his views in such a dramatic way (think Rick Warren and the SBC) it is, as they say, kind of a big deal. But it is not something readers of ByFaith ever read about: There has been no reporting on the May presbytery meeting where he was removed (as far as we can tell) from the presbytery’s rolls—as much for his intention to join another denomination as for his new views. 

YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD that one of the Presbyterian Church in America’s most notable ministers got in trouble, was suspended by his presbytery, went through a lengthy discipline process, eventually resigned his church, and two days later was restored as a member in good standing by his presbytery. You might have heard that much and no more, because as far as the PCA’s denominational organ ByFaith1 is concerned that was the end of the story.
ByFaith is in a tough spot. They have to balance the varied roles of “internal” (for the PCA) messaging system, outward-facing…well, face of the PCA, news bureau, and public relations organ. They do a pretty good job covering the annual General Assembly but often opt out of controversial issues. And because of the broadness of the PCA they sometimes promote figures who later become problematic or leave—loudly or quietly. An old puff piece on the “ministry” that factored heavily into pastor Greg Johnson and his historic church leaving the PCA under duress, for instance, lives on.
The innovative is often favored over the boring, but controversy is sometimes handled with kid gloves or passed over in silence. Such (so far) has been the case with news about departed celebrity pastor and prolific author Scott Sauls whose visage, byline, and opinions have been all over the pages of ByFaith for years. It appears that he wrote more ByFaith articles in the last decade than any other PCA pastor, and he was Tim Keller’s golden boy understudy2—arguably the face of the PCA, the exemplar of pastoral piety and practice.

HE IS PCA NO MORE. But you might not know that. You probably don’t know it because the facts of his departure were not covered by ByFaith.

Read More
Related Posts:

Christ has “ordained..his system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship.” All of these good things (and how to use them) are “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom.” From the means the men learn the method; from the oracles the officers learn the ordinances. The method and the means sweetly agree. Indeed they are inseparable, as medium and message almost always are.

The wonderful Preface to the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order is an overlooked masterpiece of piety and practice—an especially helpful resource:
Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.– Section I, The King and Head of the Church
These words provide remarkable encouragement for both church members and officers, and they place a considerable responsibility on those ordained men who lead and care for the church. In this foundational paragraph, we learn that the ascended Christ (Eph. 4:8), the reigning king, has provided the church with the men, the means, and the method for accomplishing her mission.

The men are (for the first-century church) “the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists,” and (for the church since) those who hold the continuing office of elder—“the shepherds and teachers.”1 (Eph. 4:11)
The means2 are given by the Holy Spirit through the “the apostles (and) the prophets”—the oracles of God which are the inspired Holy Scriptures, the authoritative Word objectively existing, perfect and eternal.
The method is the employment of the ordinances—the divinely-ordained delivery system of grace and truth, including “the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word”3 and the administration of the sacraments. It is worth noting that these are uniquely of the church and occur primarily (and best) in the church’s public worship on the Lord’s Day.

This is encouraging for church members because it means all necessary provision has been made for their souls in the ministrations of the church. It is good news, as 19th-century presbyterian Stuart Robinson understood when he titled his great book “The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel.”
This is good news for church officers, too, who are not left to their own devices, creativity, or whims in ordering and caring for the church.
Read More
Related Posts:

Machen stuck to his doctrinal guns and his insistence on Christian doctrine, mission, and ministry in Christian churches—for a certain intolerance. And he paid dearly for it. 

Religious intolerance was no more welcome in Machen’s day than now. The same was true 2000 years ago in the polytheistic, polyamorous, anything-goes Roman Empire. Theology is necessarily mathematical, but have one god or many…just don’t be seen as dissing the emperor. The great sin was really exclusivity, regardless of your first-century mathematical-theological calculations:
That brings us to our second point. The primitive Church, we have just seen, was radically doctrinal. In the second place, it was radically intolerant. In being radically intolerant, as in being radically doctrinal, it placed itself squarely in opposition to the spirit of that age. That was an age of syncretism and tolerance in religion; it was an age of what J. S. Phillimore has called “the courtly polygamies of the soul.” But with that tolerance, with those courtly polygamies of the soul, the primitive Christian Church would have nothing to do. It demanded a completely exclusive devotion. A man could not be a worshiper of the God of the Christians and at the same time be a worshiper of other gods; he could not accept the salvation offered by Christ and at the same time admit that for other people there might be some other way of salvation; he could not agree to refrain from proselytizing among men of other faiths, but came forward, no matter what it might cost, with a universal appeal. That is what I mean by saying that the primitive Christian Church was radically intolerant.
It’s pretty obvious what “courtly polygamies of the soul” and what toleration Machen had in mind in 1933:
Just the year before a very respectable call for tolerant religion had gone out, funded by no less than zillionaire John D. Rockefeller, one of the mainline’s main moneymen.
“In 1932, the book “Rethinking Missions” was published. It stated that its aim was to do exactly what the title suggested, namely, to change the purpose of sending foreign missionaries to the world. Its aim was to seek the truth from the religions to which it went, rather than to present the truth of historic Christianity. There should be a common search for truth as a result of missionary ministry, was the consensus of this book. (Former presbyterian missionary) Pearl Buck agreed one hundred per cent with the results of this book. She believed that every American Christian should read it.” 1
Machen’s call to intolerance was not unreasonable at all. What he wanted was a Christian church (and hence Christian ministers and missionaries) who were Christian.
This was no new concern for Machen. Ten years earlier in Christianity and Liberalism he had already contended that “what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to be long in a distinct category…despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.” One might conceivably accuse Machen of unoriginality or cussed stick-in-the-muddiness. What you cannot accuse him of is inconsistency.
Read More
Related Posts:

The most interesting thing about these two alleged 15% segments is that there seems to be virtually no overlap between them. Find a PCA church with evening worship (in addition to morning worship) with two full sermons on the Lord’s Day AND unordained “deacons” serving on a unisex board and—to be frank— you’ve found something like a sasquatch riding a unicorn.

Just as certain ratios recur in the natural world, so does the normal distribution (or bell curve) prove helpful in thinking about things ecclesial. At the beginning of the Presbyterian Church in America’s sixth decade, a couple of roughly 15%-70%-15% distributions seem to stand out…and invite analysis.

Standard disclaimer: If analyzing divisions, trends, percentages, or distributions concerning the church strikes you as offensive or divisive, please stop reading now.

The first approximately 15% segment is churches with second/evening worship services. An informal study suggested by two PCA members found that a bit more than 12% of PCA churches have a second/evening worship service. This data was gleaned from PCA church websites and even the authors would not claim 100% accuracy. My guess is that the number is just a bit low—something nearer 15% is likely. The presence of evening worship services (not identical to morning services) may suggest something about a church and the convictions of her officers (since second services don’t occur by accident), but more about that later.
The second approximately 15% segment is churches that are (usually) egalitarian-leaning and employ ecclesial modifications and attenuations—the innovators. This category is sure to provoke pushback, but let me try to explain. Under this heading, I’d place PCA churches that:

Downplay presbyterian distinctives by, for example, not clearly identifying themselves as PCA on their church websites, listing “staff” but not officers on the web or in bulletins, employing scaled-down, minimalist, or alternative doctrinal statements for public consumption. They are quite intentionally not “presby maxing.”
Have heavy, regular involvement of unordained persons in liturgical roles in worship services. This goes beyond having women or young people in the rotation to read scripture. What I have in mind is much, if not most, of the worship service leadership (besides the sermon and benediction) being conducted by unordained persons.

Read More
Related Posts:

The 2018 Revoice conference shook the PCA. It was hosted by a PCA church, whose ministries seemed to show just how far a contextual-missional emphasis could go. It did not help that the host church’s pastor became a sort of “mascot in an ascot” for the movement after publishing a controversial book on the subject. Though the pastor’s initial speech to the GA in 2019 was greeted with applause, Side B gay Christianity and its spokesman proved to be a bridge too far for the PCA middle. The pastor and church left in the middle7 of a discipline process that had moved in fits and starts—with traditional presbyterian slowness—and was never fully resolved. Things changed post-2019. The demographics of the assembly changed and so did the attitude. 

The opening session drama at last week’s 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America may have signaled (or confirmed) a new era for the 51-year-old denomination. At issue was the final ratification of a Book of Church Order amendment to tighten up the denomination’s doctrine of office and ordination. The amendment passed the final hurdle and is now church law, but only after some emotional arguments against and startling (to some) admissions1 of ecclesial deviation, disorder, contextualization, or acts of conscience—depending on one’s perspective. More on all of this later; for now let us try to answer the question “In which era does the PCA find itself…and how did we get here?”
The First Era: Founding and Finding (1973-1993)
The PCA formed in 1973 as a mixed mini multitude of Southern cultural conservatives, evangelicals who usually baptized babies, and committed presbyterian confessionalists. They all knew they wanted out of the liberalizing Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) which they expected would inevitably reunite with the Northern church and get even worse. One need only look at the resultant wretched rainbow that the PCUSA union denomination is in 2024 to see that the imperfect founders of the PCA did the right thing in 1973.
In 1982 the young PCA got an infusion of members and culturalist evangelical energy when the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod was received into the fold. Concern about cultural influence and size-matters angst probably motivated the RPCES to join and the PCA to receive. As the growing denomination asked the “Who are we?” question in its second decade, some leaders2 answered with visions of broader vistas and bigger tents.
The Second Era: Of Big Cities and Bigger Tents (1994-2018)
By 1994 most in the PCA had heard of Tim Keller’s work in New York City (which began in 1989), and they liked what they heard. The message was that the PCA could be sophisticated, urbane, relevant, and influential in a world that was becoming ever more confusing and that had a neutral3 (at best) view of evangelicals—a label most PCA folk still owned. In 1994 a group of PCA leaders felt so strongly about the dangers of growth-hampering, unity-destroying narrowness that they got together and tried to head it off. The informal gathering produced a non-official document which was revised and republished in 1998. The group, such as it was, was known as PCA Consensus.
The document the group produced (signed by the likes of Keller, Frank Barker, John Frame, James Boice, and Harry Reeder) assumed that there was a problem—that deleterious conflict already existed.
We believe that a good part of our denominational struggle has to do with the following:I. A lack of clarity and definition about our identity and our fundamental commitments (thus producing unnecessary and prolonged conflicts).II. A lack of vision and focus regarding our mission (thus producing unnecessary confusion).III. A cumbersome structure and process, which have caused us to place our focus on the administrative, programmatic, constitutional, and judicial aspects of our life together rather than the doxological, theological, edificatory and relational aspects of our communal life (thus unnecessarily trivializing our presbyteries and assemblies).Attempts have been made in the past by various groups in the church to address some of the issues facing us, but for various reasons, the proposals have not been widely accepted by the church. Our solution is to present to the church a consensual statement—A Statement of Identity—in order to begin addressing the first concern (I) stated above. We believe this will provide a “center of gravity” for the church and a basis for future discussions on our vision and polity (numbers II and III). We also believe that a consensus on key issues regarding our identity will create an environment where allowable diversity will strengthen rather than weaken us. (bolding mine)
The Statement of Identity was a fairly conservative and modest document, but its true aim—an “allowable diversity that (would) strengthen”—was realized in the two decades after 1998 in ways some of its signatories never envisioned. First came 2002’s General Assembly approval of “Good Faith Subscription,” the desire for which the Statement clearly telegraphed. Did the signatories imagine that GFS would make exceptions to historical interpretations of the Second and Fourth Commandments unexceptional…almost expected among PCA ministers? Maybe so, maybe not.4 GFS was supposedly “shepherded” by a new interest group that followed the PCA Consensus group, the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network, whose leadership was more decidedly left of…well, if not the center, at least left of the PCA right. Diversity, reasonable latitude, and missional agility were obviously priorities for the PPLN. Again, Tim Keller was a notable leader in this group.
Read More
Related Posts:

The founders of the PCA viewed ruling elders as a reliable, commonsense bulwark against doctrinal and denominational decline. The founders were not insensible to the fact that teaching elder professors and influential large-church pastors had presided over the liberalization of the old Southern mainline church from whence the PCA came. The late increase in ruling elder participation is a fitting tribute to the founders of the PCA, many of whom were ruling elders.

The Presbyterian Church in America—if judged by General Assembly actions in the last 15 years—is changing,1 and so is the proportion of ruling elders to teaching elders who attend those assemblies. I first wrote of RE/TE percentages in 2018, the nadir of RE attendance. From 2014-2018 ruling elders made up less than 22% of GA commissioners. Then something (or a few things) happened.
What happened? The Revoice controversy played an obvious part in motivating lay elders to attend. So did efforts to raise awareness, encourage RE attendance, and assist REs with GA attendance expenses. Since 2019 unofficial events have been held at the assemblies to encourage REs and give them something to do while their pastors schmooze and catch up with old acquaintances. The increase in RE attendance is not radical—it simply represents a return to levels of previous decades:

1973-1979 – 44% (!)2
1980-1989 – 32% (the largest downward change—RPCES effect?)
1990-1999 – 32%
2000- 2009 – 29%
2010-2019 – 23%
2021-2024 – 30%3 (these years have also seen the PCA’s largest assemblies)4

Ironically, the decline in ruling elder attendance might have resulted from denominational growth. 1982’s receiving of the RPCES, far-flung expansion (like Canada and the West Coast), and growing numbers of Korean churches (who send very few ruling elders) may have played a part.
Read More
Related Posts:

The proposed amendment’s solution is to expand potential representatives to “a communing member in good standing of a PCA church or any member in good standing of a PCA court (meaning all elders, ruling and teaching)….Another possible benefit of ensuring that accused church members have competent representation is a reduction in the number of appealed cases. Sessions might have more incentive to carefully and reasonably follow process when accused persons are properly assisted and represented.

An overture to the 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America would expand the pool of representatives for those accused by church courts and bring the PCA’s practice more in line with that of her conservative Presbyterian sister denominations. Church officers know that many church discipline cases end badly, with most accused dropping out of the process rather than being restored or convicted of anything other than contumacy—not participating in the process. Overture 26 seeks to keep accused church members in the process for their own good and reclamation. The whereases in the proposed amendment to the Book of Church Order (mostly just quoting other sections of the BCO) explain:
“Whereas, the exercise of discipline is highly important and necessary, and in its proper usage discipline maintains the glory of God, the purity of His Church, the keeping and reclaiming of disobedient sinners, and…the power which Christ has given the Church (including the exercise of church discipline) is for building up, and not for destruction, is to be exercised as under a dispensation of mercy and not of wrath…” (See BCO 27).
There is a present barrier to the reclamation of and restorative mercy for erring church members: the loneliness, complexity, and difficulty of standing church trial alone. Overture 26 might help alleviate some of these difficulties. At present, an accused church member “if he desires it, be represented before the Session by any communing member of the same particular church, or before any other court, by any member of that court.” This means a person accused by his or her session of some offense can be represented, but the pool of available representatives may be very small (if the church is small), unlikely to include many unbiased persons (again, if the church is small), or unlikely to include persons well-versed in the PCA’s processes (few are expert in these matters). Ruling elders (who are always church members) are among the available representatives but assumedly are already involved in the process and may not be unbiased or willing to oppose their brother elders.
The proposed amendment’s solution is to expand potential representatives to “a communing member in good standing of a PCA church or any member in good standing of a PCA court (meaning all elders, ruling and teaching)….Another possible benefit of ensuring that accused church members have competent representation is a reduction in the number of appealed cases. Sessions might have more incentive to carefully and reasonably follow process when accused persons are properly assisted and represented.
Read More
Related Posts: