But what matters to me is that we can all agree that there are principled convictions we should all share. We can appreciate diversity while we also strive to remain faithful to what God’s Word says regarding how we should worship God. Four of the Ten Commandments directly relate to how we worship God, and yet we have no set of guidelines for how that should be done? This should not be. I speak in favor of a PCA Directory for Worship.

I have a radical proposal. I know that many will believe this goes against the precepts of “grassroots” Presbyterianism (a term I’ve never heard defined, but one that sure gets thrown around a lot when someone wants to checkmate their opponent in the PCA).[1] I know that “The Founders”[2] would disagree with me (depending on which ones you cite). I know that this proposal will lead to “the end of the denomination as we know it,”[3] yet I still believe it to be true. Here’s my radical proposal: the PCA should have a Directory for Worship.
There’s a saying that, over the centuries, has been proven true many times over: Lex orandi, lex credenda, “The law of prayer is the law of belief.” Or put in more colloquial language, “the way you worship will necessarily shape what you believe.” But I would argue that we could just as easily flip that saying around so that it’s lex credendi, lex orandi:[4] “What we believe informs how we should worship.” Our beliefs require that we order our worship in a certain way so that we are faithful in practice to what we confess to believe. The way the Presbyterian Church historically, and perhaps almost all confessional Presbyterian bodies, has seen fit to assure that worship is ordered rightly is to have a Directory for Worship.
The Westminster Standards and Worship

A church that believes “man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God and fully enjoy him forever,”[5] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations,”[6] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him,”[7] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship,”[8] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge,”[9] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation,”[10] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; or building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation,”[11] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families,”[12] should have a Directory for Worship (one which defines who is and who is not permitted to read the word publicly, and which also gives guidance to heads of households for how the word is to be read in families).
A church that believes, “The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted,”[13] should have a Directory for Worship (thankfully we do have a directory for the Sacraments).
A church that believes, “To pray in the name of Christ is, in obedience to his command, and in confidence on his promises, to ask mercy for his sake; not by bare mentioning of his name, but by drawing our encouragement to pray, and our boldness, strength, and hope of acceptance in prayer, from Christ and his mediation,”[14] should have a Directory for Worship.
A church that believes, “We are to pray with an awful apprehension of the majesty of God, and deep sense of our own unworthiness, necessities, and sins; with penitent, thankful, and enlarged hearts; with understanding, faith, sincerity, fervency, love, and perseverance, waiting upon him, with humble submission to his will,”[15] should have a Directory for Worship.

You’ll notice that I haven’t really been arguing in this section. This has simply been statements from the Larger Catechism, a document that is already constitutional. But lest one object, as one presbyter did on the floor of the General Assembly, and argue that “we have all we need in the Larger Catechism,” please allow me to simply point out the obvious. Those who wrote the Larger Catechism also wrote a Directory for Worship. The Larger Catechism, as well as the Confession and the Shorter Catechism, state what we believe. A good directory will put what we believe into practice.
Using a Directory for Worship
For example, the Shorter Catechism says, “The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.”[16]
That’s what we believe, but what does that mean in practice? Well, the Directory for Worship helps us in BCO 48. Much of this chapter addresses how individuals and families can sanctify the Lord’s Day, especially outside of public worship. BCO 48-7 teaches, “Let the time not used for public worship be spent in prayer, in devotional reading, and especially in the study of the Scriptures, meditation, catechising, religious conversation, the singing of psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs; visiting the sick, relieving the poor, teaching the ignorant, holy resting, and in performing such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy.”[17] Notice how the Directory gives examples of what works of necessity and mercy could be, and at the same time allows freedom by not limiting them to the examples given. The Directory serves as a helpful pastoral guide for church officers and members. It helps us to make disciples who sanctify the Lord’s Day.
Likewise, the Larger Catechism says of preaching, “The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; or building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation;”[18] and the Directory for Worship shows us how we can put it into practice. BCO 50-1 says,
The public reading of the Holy Scriptures is performed by the minister as God’s servant. Through it God speaks most directly to the congregation, even more directly than through the sermon. The reading of the Scriptures by the minister is to be distinguished from the responsive reading of certain portions of Scripture by the minister and the congregation. In the former God addresses His people; in the latter God’s people give expression in the words of Scripture to their contrition, adoration, gratitude and other holy sentiments. The psalms of Scripture are especially appropriate for responsive reading.[19]
Our Directory leaves the length of the passage to be read to the discretion of the minister. Our Directory also allows freedom as to who is permitted to read Scripture in the corporate worship service.[20] Responsive readings, which are one of my favorite parts of the worship services at Trinity, are not even mandated. What is clear is that Scripture is to be read, it is to be read from a good and understandable translation, and the people are to know that, in the reading of Scripture, God Almighty is speaking to them.
Likewise, BCO 53, which the General Assembly recently declined to make constitutional, applies what we believe regarding the preached word. In this chapter we are reminded that, “The preaching of the Word is an ordinance of God for the salvation of men.”[21] We are told that, “The subject of a sermon should be some verse or verses of Scripture, and its object, to explain, defend and apply some part of the system of divine truth; or to point out the nature, and state the bounds and obligation, of some duty.”[22] To quote Marty McFly, “this is heavy.” The duty that we have as ministers of the gospel is more than we could ever bear in our own strength, and just when we think the Directory is being hard on us, it drops this bomb on us,
Preaching requires much study, meditation, and prayer, and ministers should prepare their sermons with care, and not indulge themselves in loose, extemporary harangues, nor serve God with that which costs them naught. They should, however, keep to the simplicity of the Gospel, and express themselves in language that can be understood by all. They should also by their lives adorn the Gospel which they preach, and be examples to believers in word and deed.
I have a feeling all my fellow pastors need a second to recover from that. Let me ask you, brothers, how are you doing measured up to that? How much study, meditation, and prayer are you giving your sermons? Do you find yourself at the end of the week scrambling to get something together? How often do you enter Sunday morning wondering if you put enough work into your sermon during the past week? How often are you tempted to despair when faced with the reality of your own remaining sin?
First, you’re probably doing better than you feel like you are after you read that paragraph. That’s a high standard, and it’s supposed to spur you on to applying yourself more and dedicating yourself more and working more at the task to which you’ve been called. Don’t let the weight of the calling crush you. Toil and struggle with all his energy that he powerfully works within you.
Second, don’t forget that “the simplicity of the Gospel” applies to you, too. Don’t get so caught up in the magnitude of the task that you forget the great treasure we have in the gospel. Yes, you need to be giving this gift to your people, but it’s yours too. Your sins are forgiven in Christ so that you can teach transgressors his ways. Don’t forget that.
Finally, one esteemed presbyter said on the GA floor that this chapter was “unenforceable” because the verb “shall” is never used. Well, quite frankly, the tenth commandment is unenforceable even when the verb “shall” is used. Just because it’s unenforceable doesn’t mean it’s useless; however, this chapter is most useful. I think I’m going to start reading it every Monday morning.
Unity (Not Uniformity)
There are two primary objections raised by those who oppose a constitutional Directory for Worship in the PCA.  (1) Those advocating a constitutional Directory want uniformity of practice (insert “grassroots” speech here). (2) “The Founders,” in their wisdom, chose not to adopt the Directory as Constitutional. Since I’m running out of space in this article, the second objection will have to wait, but what of this first objection? Would a constitutional Directory for Worship really mandate uniformity of practice? The answer must be a resounding “NO!” I offer two reasons.
First, a Directory for Worship is simply the application of the regulative principle to the specific denomination that adopts it. Once again, there is the overarching principle followed by the application of that principle. So, the question must be asked: Does the regulative principle mandate uniformity? Well, don’t take my word for it, here’s what Dr. Ligon Duncan has to say,
Reformed theologians argue that the whole substance of worship must be biblical. Not that only words from the Bible can be used, but that all that is done and said in worship is in accordance with sound biblical theology. The content of each component must convey God’s truth as revealed in his word. They also assert that God specifically commanded the elements he desired in worship (reading the word, preaching the word, singing, prayer, administration of the sacraments, oaths and vows, etc.). To and from these, we may neither add nor take away. As for the form of the elements, there will be some variations: different prayers will be prayed, different songs sung, different Scriptures read and preached, the components of worship rearranged from time to time, the occasional elements (like the sacraments, oaths, and vows) performed at various chosen times, and the like. There will be, of necessity, some human discretion exercised in these matters. So here, Christian common sense under the direction of general scriptural principles, patterns, and proportions must make a determination. Finally – as to circumstances – whether we sit or stand, have pews or chairs, meet in a church building or storefront, sing from a hymnal or from memory,[23] what time on the Lord’s Day services are to be held, and more – these things must be decided upon in the absence of specific biblical direction, and hence they must be done (as with the case of the forms above) in accordance with “the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word.”[24]
Did you notice how many things Dr. Duncan said were subject to discretion? In my estimation, the only things that would be uniform would be that the word is read, the word is preached, the congregation sings (I would politely add that Paul seems to think they should at least sing Psalms in addition to other hymns and songs), and that the sacraments, oaths, and vows are administered occasionally. Literally everything else is subject to variation including how often you administer the Lord’s Supper.
Now, that’s not to say that there are not those who would like to see uniformity in worship practice, but Dr. Duncan argues against their methods in another essay in the same book. He writes,
There is, of course, a small but intelligent and literate movement advocating formal liturgical renewal in Reformed evangelicalism. Usually emphasizing the contributions of the early church and the early Reformed liturgies of Strasbourg and Geneva and unwittingly adopting a late-nineteenth-century Scoto-Catholic interpretation of their significance, this movement…generally scathing in its estimation of the Westminster Directory and Puritan worship, is working to “liturgicalize” Reformed and evangelical corporate worship. This group propounds what Old calls “Liturgical Romanticism” – the view that, if we could just get back to Bucer’s liturgy all would be put right in the church today! This reform effort seems to have captured the imagination of many fine young conservative Reformed ordinands and shares a kinship with “the great tradition” movement evident in broader evangelicalism. This is not our call however. Our call is to something both simpler and more profound. We are not harkening the church to fixed forms from the past, however elegant or even consonant with Reformed worship they may be. We are, instead, calling the church to the Bible – to its simple principles and patterns.[25]
This is all a Directory for Worship would do, call the church to the Bible. I don’t know if Dr. Duncan agrees with me or not regarding the propriety of having a constitutional Directory for Worship in the PCA, but his writing on the regulative principle is what brought me to this conclusion. We must have our worship ordered according to God’s Word, and “The key benefit of the regulative principle is that it helps to assure that God – not man – is the supreme authority for how corporate worship is to be conducted.”[26]
In an article by Michael Khandjian posted to Presbyterian Polity, he stated,
Many of us have ministered and worshipped outside the US, in countries where the styles of worship are very different, yet where God’s Word is preached, taught – revered. When have any come home to say, ‘We need to change how that church worships in Zimbabwe!’ We don’t, because in those churches, by God’s grace and through His Spirit, we meet Jesus afresh – and rather than criticize, we celebrate – and we should.
We should here, too. We should celebrate that church whose worship is highly liturgical, and that church that weaves the Confession throughout its service, and that church that uses modern worship music, as well as the historic, the churches where men wear suits, and the women dresses, as well as the ones where there are as many short pants flip-flops, as there are long.[27]
With respect to TE Khandjian, everything he described in these two paragraphs were things that the regulative principle (and thus a good Directory for Worship) leaves subject to change based on local circumstances. My internship in Central Carolina Presbytery was at Cross Covenant Chinese Church. I led the music in this church. We sang some hymns and some Chinese worship songs. I led while playing my guitar, and we were in the process of adding a piano when COVID hit. Then I took a job as worship leader at Starmount ARP. There we sang hymns, psalms, and modern worship music in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Now I’m in a traditional Southern Presbyterian congregation where we sing from The Trinity Psalter Hymnal. All of these congregations worshipped according to the regulative principle.
And we can see this in another denomination that has a Directory for Worship, the ARP. If you go to Starmount ARP in Charlotte, NC, you’ll find a band on the platform, words on the screen, and a willingness to sing any song that’s not doctrinally errant. If you go to Bethany ARP in Clover, SC, I’m told you’ll find a church that sings the latest cutting-edge worship music of the 1930s from Bible Songs.[28] If you go to Ballantyne ARP, you’ll find a more or less typical Southern Presbyterian worship service, where they use The Trinity Hymnal and also occasionally The ARP Psalter. The ARP’s Directory of Public Worship has not stopped any of these congregations from having a distinct and immediately recognizable worship style.
Neither would uniformity be imposed in the PCA. I definitely have my preferences, and I definitely have my convictions. But what matters to me is that we can all agree that there are principled convictions we should all share. We can appreciate diversity while we also strive to remain faithful to what God’s Word says regarding how we should worship God. Four of the Ten Commandments directly relate to how we worship God, and yet we have no set of guidelines for how that should be done? This should not be. I speak in favor of a PCA Directory for Worship.
Jonathan Brooks is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Pastor of Trinity PCA in Maryville, Tenn.

[1] The best definition of “grass-roots” Presbyterianism I’ve heard came from Dr. C.N. Willborn, who pointed out that American Presbyterianism began with local congregations, who then joined to form the First Presbytery in Philadelphia, finally culminating in a General Assembly. This differs from the way Presbyterianism came to Scotland, where the General Assembly came first, then the Presbyteries, and so on. That being said, my point about the use of this term stands. Those who want more strident, Old School Presbyterianism say “grass-roots” principles support this. Those who want a church that looks more like the vision laid out in Center Church by Tim Keller will likewise point to so-called “grass-roots” principles. The term is often an empty vessel into which different people can put whatever meaning they wish.
[2] This is not intended, in any way, to show disrespect to the men who gathered in Birmingham in 1973 to found the National Presbyterian Church, later renamed the Presbyterian Church in America. I have, however, noticed in recent years that what “the founders” would or wouldn’t do is often thrown around in such a way as to end debate.
[3] Michael Khandjian, “Do We Need a Directory for Worship? No.” https://pcapolity.com/2024/01/16/do-we-need-a-directory-for-worship-no/. Accessed July 2, 2024.
[4] Please forgive me if my Latin isn’t grammatically correct.
[5] WLC 1.
[6] WLC 35.
[7] WLC 63.
[8] WLC 117.
[9] WLC 118. Italics mine.
[10] WLC 154.
[11] WLC 155.
[12] WLC 156.
[13] WLC 161.
[14] WLC 180.
[15] WLC 185.
[16] WSC 60.
[17] BCO 48-7
[18] WLC 155.
[19] BCO 50-1
[20] BCO 50-2, “The reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is part of the public worship of God and should be done by the minister or some other person.” “Other person” is never defined.
[21] BCO 53-1
[22] BCO 53-2
[23] I don’t know how familiar Dr. Duncan was with screens in 2003, but you can throw that in there as well.
[24] J. Ligon Duncan III, “Does God Care How We Worship?” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship Celebrating the Legacy of James Montgomery Boice, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W.H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 23-24. Italics mine.
[25] J. Ligon Duncan III, “Foundations for Biblically Directed Worship,” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship Celebrating the Legacy of James Montgomery Boice, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W.H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 69. Italics mine.
[26] Duncan, “Does God Care How We Worship?” 24.
[27] Michael Khandjian, “Do We Need a Directory for Worship? No.” https://pcapolity.com/2024/01/16/do-we-need-a-directory-for-worship-no/. Accessed July 3, 2024.
[28] “Also in 1931, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church compiled, printed and made extensive use of Bible Songs, a somewhat freer translation of the psalms, many of them set to the melodies of popular ‘Gospel’ songs that were used in other denominations. Many sources were used for Bible Songs with the greatest number coming from various United Presbyterian publications.” C. Earl Linderman and Robert J. Cara, “Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church History of Psalm Singing,” in The ARP Psalter: With Bible Songs (Pittsburgh: Crown & Covenant, 2011), vii. As I understand it, Bible Songs was an attempt to keep Psalm singing by making it more palatable to the young people of the time. It’s setting of Psalm 148, “Hallelujah Praise Jehovah,” is one that I have to stop myself from selecting each and every week.
Related Posts:

Ryan Biese has already chronicled this case (Harrell v Covenant Presbytery) quite extensively, complete with a list of lessons to be learned, and his account is well worth reading. I would, however, like to add my own reflections as one who has seen discipline done correctly, seen discipline done wrongly, and has also watched this case from the beginning.

The Church is filled with sinners. Thanks be to God, they are sinners who have been justified, that act of God’s free grace wherein he pardons their sins and accepts them as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone.[1] And, thanks be to God, they are sinners who have been adopted, that act of God’s free grace whereby they are received into the number and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.[2] And, thanks be to God, they are sinners who are being sanctified, that work of God’s free grace whereby they are renewed in the whole man after the image of God and are enabled, more and more, to die unto sin and live unto righteousness.[3] But make no mistake, the church is still filled with sinners, and it will be filled with sinners until Christ returns.
In fact, there are some in the church now who will one day fall away. This is a sad reality, but it’s true. They will depart from us, for they are not truly of us. We are not able to always know who such people are. We simply examine the profession of faith, instruct them to bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and trust God to sort out the wheat and the tares when Christ comes again. And yet, for the glory of God, for the good of the sheep, and for the peace and purity of the church, sometimes the church must step in and bring discipline on those who may not be allegedly walking consistently with their profession, or those who deny the gospel itself. We pray that God would use the discipline of his church in order to reprove these sheep as a loving father corrects his children.
Discipline always is, and always should be, difficult. It should cause us great grief and anguish because it is a result of the fact that the church is filled with sinners. We should all long for the day when church discipline is no longer necessary because Christ has returned and finally rid the world of the very presence of sin. Until that day comes, though, we should always remember what the BCO says regarding discipline in the church:
The power Christ has given the Church is for building up, and not for destruction. It is to be exercised as under a dispensation of mercy and not of wrath. As in the preaching of the Word the wicked are doctrinally separated from the good, so by discipline the Church authoritatively separates between the holy and the profane. In this it acts the part of a tender mother, correcting her children for their good, that every one of them may be presented faultless in the day of the Lord Jesus.[4]
As a child of the church, raised in conservative, Bible-believing Baptist churches, I got to see many times when discipline was exercised in this way. I got to see members caught in sin called to repentance by the church, and I got to see (in some cases) eventual restoration. I also, however, witnessed cases where discipline was (at least in my view) absolutely exercised as under a dispensation of wrath. The point was not reconciliation or to win back offenders, but rather it appeared to be punitive vengeance. You see, one of the major difficulties with church discipline is the fact that everyone involved are sinners. So even the officers of the church must always take heed lest they fall, lest they would do exactly what Christ said not to do: lord their authority over those in their charge.
At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that discipline is for the good of the sheep. We should all be mindful of the fact that we live under authority. We are all commanded by God to preserve the honor, and perform the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals.[5] We are likewise all forbidden from neglecting of, or doing anything against, the honor and duty which belongs to everyone in their several places and relations.[6] Both “sides” of church discipline must remember the honor and duties that they owe to one another.
Harrell et al. v. Covenant Presbytery
The case of Harrell et al. v. Covenant Presbytery came to my attention probably in late 2020, early 2021 at the latest. One of the defendants, Zach Lott, is my best friend’s brother. He and I do not know each other very well, but we have met. In fact, when my whole family got COVID during Christmas of 2020, the Lott family graciously received us into their home and allowed me and my wife to spend the holiday with them. I learned about the case in a very personal way, and therefore I had very personal feelings about it. When I saw the decision in last year’s SJC report,[7] I was pleased that the appeal was sustained and the judgment of the lower courts reversed.[8]
As I stated to Ryan Biese, I got to see the impact of the censure these men endured firsthand. It’s difficult to describe the hurt you can see on two brothers’ faces when one has to deny the other access to the table. I will never forget hearing Alex console his brother, telling him that he did the right thing. In my view, this was an example of the private ministry of the Word. Even in such a painful (and, make no mistake, it was painful) situation, Alex was a good pastor and instructed his brother in the fifth commandment. After all, Zach still owed the men on that Session, “All due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsel; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.”[9]
What I still, to this day, find most admirable is the fact that no one would have known if Zach had come to the table. No one in the congregation at Starmount Church knew of the censure. No one from Covenant Presbytery would have ever found out, and no one from First Presbytery in the ARP was present or even aware of the censure, either. Yet Christ’s words were still true that we will all, one day give an account for every careless word we speak (Matt. 12:36). So I believe the actions of the Lott brothers on that December 24th honored Christ and his Word.
Ryan Biese has already chronicled this case quite extensively, complete with a list of lessons to be learned, and his account is well worth reading. I would, however, like to add my own reflections as one who has seen discipline done correctly, seen discipline done wrongly, and has also watched this case from the beginning.
Lesson 1: Sometimes it’s better to simply vote your conscience
As you may know, the real “trouble” in this case began when “TE Wreyford and a church member met with Stephen Leininger and Wesley Hurston, two representatives of the Accused, who, ‘speaking for the group,’ communicated a set of concerns shared by the group.”[10] After this meeting, and at TE Wreyford’s insistence, as I understand it, “The Accused met with the entire Session. During the meeting, Stephen Leininger, as a representative of the Accused, read a statement recounting that the seven were ‘unanimous in their opinion that [TE Wreyford] is not the one to be pastor of [the mission church]’ and recommended that he ‘remove his name from consideration.’”[11]
Now, I believe the men accused have said that they did not wish for TE Wreyford to be embarrassed at the congregational meeting when opposition was raised to calling him as pastor. I have no reason to doubt their word on that. Further, I think it was wise for TE Wreyford to have these men bring their concerns to the Session as a whole, rather than to him personally. That being said, I believe that these meetings were a mistake. While it is true that, “whether the congregation of a mission church prefers to call its organizing minister as its pastor or to use a pulpit committee is left entirely to the discretion of the congregation,”[12] that is an entirely different question than whether it is a good idea to go to the organizing pastor in order to say that you don’t wish to call him as the pastor. Even if you preface that by saying, “Look, I think you’re a great guy, but…” I simply see no way to avoid being seen as provocative and antagonistic.
What I believe these men should have done is, first, determine, after much prayer and reflection, how they wished to vote in the congregational meeting. Second, distill their thoughts on the matter, much like they did when they went to TE Wreyford and the Session. Finally, utilize the privilege of the floor in the congregational meeting. That’s right, folks, sometimes even “lay people” can benefit from Robert’s Rules of Order. You see, while it is true that there were no violations of either the fifth or ninth commandments,[13] the whole process may have been much simpler, and discipline might have been avoided, if these men had utilized regular order and then submitted to the will of the congregation as a whole. I know it’s easy for me to say that with the benefit of hindsight, but I believe that we can use hindsight to do better in the future.
In cases where church members feel that they need to go to their elders privately, as the men in Jonesboro believed they did. I would urge you to remember Solomon’s advice in Proverbs 15:1, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.” In fact, I’d give that same advice to any elder who was on the other side of a situation like that. Soft answers, patience, forbearance, these are absolutely essential, especially when everyone involved is a sinner.[14]
At the end of the day, I wasn’t on the ground. I wasn’t confronted with these rapid-fire events. I wasn’t in the room for the initial meeting with TE Wreyford, and I wasn’t in the room when these men met with the Session. My advice here is not about how these men did something wrong, because they didn’t. Nor is my advice a full-proof way to avoid conflict, because one does not exist. And, really, this lesson applies equally to all involved in this situation. The Session should have let these men vote their consciences, rather than disciplining them for expressing their intention to do so. As was cited above, there were no violations of either the fifth or ninth commandments. Sometimes brothers can disagree in good faith.
Lesson 2: If the PCA is a “big tent,” that tent needs to include “ordinary means” churches
Labels are always inadequate in discussions like this. I can’t describe the difference as “liberal vs. conservative,” because there are no liberals in the PCA. I can’t say “confessional vs. non-confessional,” because everyone in the PCA has to subscribe to the Westminster Standards in good faith. I even hesitate to use the paradigm of “missional vs. ordinary means of grace,” because I think everyone in the PCA is passionate about evangelism and the means of grace. So, please, do bear with me in my insufficient nomenclature. When I speak of “ordinary means of grace” churches, I am speaking of those churches wherein the worship service is dedicated to making diligent use of “the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption,” namely, “the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.”[15]
Now, I know that definition doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, and furthermore, I know that it can sometimes be difficult to categorize churches as being “ordinary means” or not, simply by looking at them. Take for example, a traditional, mainline church where the Apostles Creed is confessed, the Gloria Patri is sung, and everything looks much like my congregation on the Lord’s Day. But then take Starmount Church in Charlotte, NC, where they have a band instead of a pianist, a screen instead of hymnals, and so on. Yet Starmount is still an ordinary means church, and the mainline church may very well not be (though I do hear that there are still a few out there who are).
What does this have to do with the Jonesboro case? Well, the accused stated over and over that all they wanted was a more “ordinary means of grace” approach. They didn’t even say that TE Wreyford was disqualified from ministry because his approach was different than they wanted.[16] Yet when the accused brought the matter to their Session, TE Clint Wilke, who was not on the Session, but was there representing the Midsouth Church Planting Network, stated, “Maybe there’s another church planter you need to call in the future or you need to be part of another denomination. Maybe the PCA isn’t it from what I’m hearing.”[17]
Look, I’m a curmudgeon. There’s no use denying it, so I don’t. I could be happy ministering in a denomination that required acapella Psalm singing. I don’t believe Scripture requires that, but neither would I protest against it if the courts of the church mandated it. Yet I don’t believe that TE’s Wreyford and Wilke have no place in the PCA. On the contrary, I praise God that, by their work, Christ is preached. If Paul could rejoice that the gospel was proclaimed by those who literally preached Christ out of envy, rivalry, and selfish ambition, men who sought to “afflict” Paul in his imprisonment, then I can rejoice that Christ is preached by those who may think that my stodgy, traditionalist approach isn’t the way to go.
Here’s the thing, though, that has to go both ways. From the beginning (or almost the beginning) the PCA was a place where both Morton Smith and D. James Kennedy were welcome. Today, it needs to be a place where both Ryan Biese and Jeff Wreyford are welcome. Otherwise, I fear this may happen again. As the SJC pointed out, “The Accused’s’ remaining ‘concerns,’ namely his philosophy of ministry and whether he was called to be their pastor, were not capable of adjudication by the Session or any other court since they describe matters of opinion that did nothing more than give voice to the reasons why the Accused found TE Wreyford to be unsuitable to become their pastor on particularization.”[18]
Lesson 3: The PCA would benefit from a Directory of Worship with Constitutional authority
This final lesson is closely related to Lesson #2. I believe our “big tent” in the PCA needs to have firm stakes in the ground. The placement of these stakes needs to be readily visible for anyone who looks. And we need to all be able to agree on where those stakes should be placed. Now, I know I’m laboring the tent analogy a bit here, but hopefully you understand my point. Just like the Standards make room for Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Historic Premillennialism,[19] a good directory of worship would make room for different approaches while keeping the proverbial Dispensationalists firmly on the outside.
Standards are not bad. Standards should not be seen as confining us, but rather they give us the freedom and confidence to know that we all play by the same rules. Good standards allow for both unity and diversity. Good standards make room for both Hodge and Thornwell, both Bahnsen and Kline, both Smith and Kennedy.[20] I think it’s time for those wiser than me to give the PCA a Directory of Worship with Constitutional Authority.
Conclusion
“Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:12 should ring in our ears every time we hear of, or witness first-hand, the discipline of the church. As my grandmother so often says, “We all walk with feet of clay.” Therefore, let us all pray that we do not fall into temptation, whether that temptation is to resent our brothers and sisters we are called by Christ to love, or (as elders) to lord our authority over the flock, or (as sheep) to rebel against our elders, or any other temptation that might befall us. Let us always remember that our adversary the devil, “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour,” and yet “we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Let us bear with one another in love as we await his return. Amen.
Jonathan Brooks is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and serves as Pastor of Trinity PCA in Maryville, Tenn.

[1] WSC 33
[2] WSC 34
[3] WSC 35
[4] BCO 27-4. Italics mine.
[5] WSC 64
[6] WSC 65
[7] GA50 Handbook, 2058-2080. This includes the Concurring Opinion by RE Jim Eggert, which is very much worth the read.
[8] Ibid. 2058
[9] WLC 127. Italics mine.
[10] GA50 Handbook, 2059.
[11] Ibid. 2059.
[12] Ibid. 2077.
[13] Ibid. 2068-2072.
[14] I would like to add one last time that I do not believe the Accused in this case did anything wrong. In fact, I believe they did try to go about everything with all due respect and all appropriate humility. This is friendly advice from a sympathetic observer. That’s all.
[15] WSC 88.
[16] GA50 Handbook, 2071.
[17] https://rfbwcf.substack.com/p/the-jonesboro-7-submit-to-edicts?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2. Accessed November 8, 2023. Italics mine.
[18] GA50 Handbook, 2071. Italics mine.
[19] I put those in order from best to worst…
[20] I am endorsing exactly zero people on that list without reservation (some of them not at all). I simply point out that every pair were both members in good standing of the same denomination.
Related Posts: