In the PCA, we have rules to prevent us from taking that easy, pragmatic approach. In the PCA we have all agreed on a “due process” to deal with problem people (see BCO 29ff). This procedural, constitutional method is both relational and loving, and it is biblical (cf. Matthew 18:15ff). It preserves the rights even of the “difficult” person to make his case and enables the elders to shepherd that allegedly difficult person to the glory of Christ. Because of our polity and necessary due process, we are required to actually do the hard work of shepherding and discipleship.

On August 11, 2024 I marked 11 years of ordained ministry in the PCA. With each passing year, I grow more grateful to God for the PCA and for preserving me in it.
I was reflecting recently on the blessings of PCA polity and culture. Someone once quipped about the PCA: “she is full of pastors who want to be lawyers and lawyers who want to be pastors.” Whether meant as a pejorative or as a compliment, it’s true!
Each year at PCA General Assembly, there are numerous constitutional and procedural questions. And whenever there is controversy, numerous men head for the microphones with their “Blue Bricks” and iPads in hand to remind us of the appropriate procedure or requirement from our Form of Government or Rules of Assembly Operation.
In the PCA, we believe polity is important because it comes from our King. This is reflected in the beginning of our Book of Church Order:
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;
It is a blessing to serve in a denomination with “polity nerds” like Jared Nelson, Scott Edburg, and Ben Ratliff who have kept us entertained and informed with a whole podcast dedicated to the principles of our polity and the foundations of Presbyterian Church Government.
Robust Polity is Loving
It is the prerogative of Church courts to establish polity in accordance with God’s word. In the Westminster Standards, we confess:
It [belongs] to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His church (WCF 31:2)
While the PCA has been criticized for being overly strict in its adherence and commitment to procedures and polity and for not being “relational” enough, I do not think those criticisms are reasonable. In fact, I think those sort of criticisms misunderstand what it is to be “relational.” Our polity exists for “the better ordering of public worship of God” and the “better…government of His Church.” Following the rules we have established and agreed upon is the loving thing to do.
The polity of a denomination determines how the members of that communion will relate to one another. They are the rules we agree to follow together. These rules provide a level, clear, and fair playing field for all people and parties. The same rules apply to me as a pastor of a small church of about 100 people as apply to David Strain, David Cassidy, David Hall, or David Barry all of whom pastor much more significant congregations in the PCA. The fact they pastor flagship congregations gives them no more right or standing in the Church courts than have I!
Read More
Related Posts:

God has been abundantly kind, patient, and good to the PCA for the last 51 years and especially so recently. Since 2018, the PCA is has strengthened her commitment to marriage and historic, biblical sexuality, she has enhanced her focus on holding one another accountable through the Presbyteries, and is currently seeking to expand her ties with Reformed Churches globally. It is a great day to be in the PCA.

Editorial Note: I’m compiling a YouTube playlist on many of the speeches from this year’s General Assembly if you want to see some of the men make the arguments summarized here.
I have written a report on the General Assembly each year since at least 2015, and the transformation in that time is remarkable. In 2015 I summarized the state of the PCA after the Chattanooga Assembly for my elders and the congregation I served in this way:
We are, on the whole, a “sound” denomination, and there was much that was encouraging about the future of the PCA, but there were a few items of great concern.
Looking back nearly a decade later and forward to another General Assembly in Chattanooga next year, the character of the Assembly has profoundly changed; we’re no longer merely ‘on the whole a “sound” denomination.” Since 2015, the PCA has taken significant strides toward confessional renewal and to embrace our identity as a robustly Reformed and profoundly Presbyterian communion.
It is a great time to be in the PCA.
The Assembly begins with a worship service. The first worship service served as an exemplar of Reformed and Presbyterian worship. There were very few musicians, no “special music,” the musicians understood their role as accompanists rather than performers. The preaching, by retiring Moderator TE Fred Greco, was a faithful, exegetical passionate, personal proclamation of God’s word calling us to be “Faithful to the Scripture.”
What a blessing it is to worship with thousands of others according to the simple and beautiful principles of biblically ordered worship. Thanks to RE Rick Hutton of All Saints Reformed Presbyterian Church for his leadership in planning this worship service.
I. Presiding Officer: the Election of a Moderator
Only one man was put forward for moderator, RE Steve Dowling; he was nominated by RE Melton Duncan. RE Dowling is a faithful churchman and served the Assembly last year as Overtures Committee Chairman as well as for many years on the Standing Judicial Commission.
He has been active in the Mission to the Military and Internationals working to promote church planting abroad.
This Assembly featured some procedural surprises, and RE Dowling ably and skillfully steered the Assembly with clarity and even-handedness, wit and good cheer.
II. Polity
A. Officer Titles
The Assembly made an impressive start on Tuesday night by approving all three BCO changes ratified by the Presbyteries. Both Item 2 (chastity in character, convictions, and conduct for officers) and Item 3 (requiring a person’s confession of sin to be reviewed by those whom s/he offended) passed with little opposition
Item 1, however, passed only after considerable debate. Item 1 restricts the ecclesiastical use of the titles of Pastor, Elder, and Deacon to ordained officers only. This is a necessary and narrow change because numerous churches have women or other unordained people using the titles of church office, but without ordination.
At least one PCA church in Atlanta has a woman pastor.
Item 1 makes it abundantly clear that in the PCA every Pastor, Elder, and Deacon has been ordained and elected to office and that churches are prohibited from giving those titles to unordained people.
There were several speeches in opposition to this change. While there was one speech that made a biblical argument for women in the office of deacon, most other speeches centered on two other major objections: (1) the longstanding practice of referring to women and unordained people with the titles of church office or (2) the cultural customs of some of the churches to use these titles for non-officers.
I was disappointed by some of the particular arguments. Even before this change, our Book of Church Order already was abundantly clear the titles of elder and deacon were to be used in ecclesiastical contexts to refer only to ordained men (cf. BCO 17-1). I found it shocking Elders were willing to admit on the floor of the Assembly that they and/or their Session are not in conformity with the requirements of PCA’s Constitution.
Item 1 made no change in what was lawful in the PCA. It simply added a paragraph to BCO 7 that weaves together in one place requirements stipulated in multiple places elsewhere in the BCO (cf. BCO 9-1, 9-3, 16-3, and 17-1).
B. Review of Presbytery Records (RPR)
The RPR has become the center of greater focus as the competing visions for the PCA interact more directly. One side of the PCA seems to envision a polity that is driven by broad adherence to the general outlines of procedure and theology, whereas another wing of the PCA believes in more careful observance of our constitution and procedures.
For the past few years the latter vision of the PCA has been able to persuade the Assembly to demand closer adherence to our Rules. This year’s RPR report and the debate featured numerous attempts to alter the RPR Report to remove “exceptions of substance” and allow questionable Presbytery actions to stand without the General Assembly requiring the Presbytery to explain further or respond to questions raised by the action.
Two items warrant further discussion. In addition to simply finding exceptions of substance, sometimes the RPR Committee will discover issues in Presbytery actions, which they believe are grossly unconstitutional (BCO 40-5). In two cases, the General Assembly referred matters to the Judicial Commission.
1. New York Metro Presbytery (MNY)
Continuing the multi-year saga flowing from MNY’s initial failure to adequately redress a situation of a priestess pretending to preach in a PCA pulpit, the General Assembly again found the Presbytery to have failed to abide by the Constitution.
The issue this year seemed to center on the Presbytery’s failure to institute judicial process against the senior minister of a church who confessed to a view that is contrary to the standards of the PCA and the teaching of the Scripture (BCO 29-1). This minister’s view led to the scandal with the priestess in the pulpit.
The General Assembly’s Judicial Commission will now have to determine how to remedy the situation given the Presbytery’s alleged failure to abide by our Constitution.
2 . Columbus Metro Presbytery (CMP)
Whereas the MNY matter came to the Assembly through the ordinary review of minutes, the CMP matter came by means of a letter from a former member of a now-closed PCA Congregation near Columbus, Ohio. Interestingly, it seemed – based on comments on the floor – that the elders reviewing CMP’s minutes did not notice this very serious issue, but the only reason it was before the Assembly was due to a single letter from a concerned member. There are many layers of PCA polity to ensure transparency and accountability.
In the letter, the member alleged CMP unlawfully closed the congregation without giving the requisite 60-day notice and then took control of the Congregation’s assets without the consent of the members of the congregation.
It appears the Presbytery may have ignored the pleas of the members to keep the little congregation open after the Ruling Elders and pastor resigned.
This is the second time in two years our GA Handbook has contained reference to a PCA Church Court usurping the rights of the congregation. It is interesting a speech on the floor seemed to argue that since the value of the assets was only about $18,000, this matter should not rise to a judicial reference, but instead should simply be handled as an ordinary matter of an exception of substance.
By an overwhelming margin, the Assembly rejected arguments that this matter appeared to be anything other than a grossly unconstitutional action (cf. BCO 25-8).
I am thankful the Assembly – like its judicial commission last year – clearly and unequivocally stood up for the rights of the (now dissolved) congregation and directed its judicial commission to consider the matter.
C. Preaching
After limited debate, the Assembly declined to grant constitutional authority to the BCO Chapter 53 regarding preaching (by a mere 49 votes: 857-906).
It is unclear as of yet why the Assembly rejected this proposal. It may be a fear or suspicion regarding codifying our principles that govern worship; it may be that people reacted against the emphasis of the “Whereas” statements rather than the substance of the proposal.
I believe another reason this failed is simply that many faithful presbyters are – on principle – opposed to changing our Constitution unless it can be proven to be absolutely necessary. Given how almost every other vote went, I suspect there were a number in the “Old School” wing of the PCA who may have withheld their “yeas” on this question because its necessity had not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Similarly, I think the proponents of this change linked its fate far too closely to a “women in pulpits” concern rather than dealing with the importance of preaching as a means of grace. Instead of seeing this issue as part of the culture war and gender roles, I believe we should have considered this question as part of the broader philosophical identity of the PCA and what we believe preaching is.
I hope the “Old School” wing of the PCA will reconsider and strengthen this proposal in the future and invest more heavily in its adoption into the Constitution by showing the necessity of this chapter in particular. I believe the PCA would benefit from a more fully developed Directory of Worship that reflects the teaching of the Scripture and balances the two Scriptural principles contained in BCO 47-6:
The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter.
And
There is true liberty only where the rules of God’s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God’s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.
When we balance these principles (biblical liberty and order), there is room for diversity of forms and expression, while still being united by a shared theology and philosophy of worship that is regulated according to the Scripture.
D. RUF Affiliation Agreement
The Assembly adopted a standardized affiliation agreement to govern the relationship between Presbyteries and RUF Ministries. This will provide for more seamless collaboration between Lawrenceville and the Regional staff of RUF with the local campus ministry and the supporting presbytery.
Read More

Related Posts:

What Covenant Presbytery has wisely done is encourage parties to reconcile. This is always the goal anyhow: to agree in the Lord, to dwell in unity and peace. The resolution adopted by Covenant Presbytery exhorts everyone to do so while acknowledging that “mistakes were made,” which provides an opportunity for repentance and reconciliation. The decision of the SJC identifies some of the specific errors that were made by Church Courts in this case, which would be a good starting point for reconciliation.

The case of the Jonesboro 7 was a travesty of ecclesiastical justice. So much so the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA even noted the process was “abused.” I’ve written about the Jonesboro 7 somewhat extensively here and on PCA Polity.1 Others have written about it too (here and here).
As such, I planned to write no more on this subject. I thought further analysis would only distract from the good work of a thriving church plant in Jonesboro.
But there has been a new development in reference to the case, something that – according to one former General Assembly Moderator – is unprecedented.
At its February 2024 meeting, Covenant Presbytery considered an overture from the Session of Christ Covenant PCA in Hernando, Missippi. The Overture urged reconciliation between the men known as the Jonesboro 7 and Covenant Presbytery, which sustained their wrongful conviction. The Moderator of Covenant Presbytery is RE David Caldwell, but he – as a member of the previous Temporary Session – has relinquished the chair on all Jonesboro 7 matters (according to a confidential source within Covenant Presbytery).
After some debate, the overture was referred to the Presbytery’s Church Care Committee (CCC). On May 21, 2024 Covenant Presbytery – meeting at the Independent Presbyterian Church of Memphis – overwhelmingly adopted seven recommendations from the CCC.
You can find all seven recommendations here. I’m going to focus on four things Covenant Presbytery did in adopting these recommendations.
Recognize
The Presbytery unequivocally and without qualification recognized that “mistakes were made” in the judicial case. But the Presbytery went further and apologized and expressed regret specifically for not following “the process laid out in BCO 32-5.”
This is nothing short of remarkable. And it is what the gospel enables people to do; to apologize when they have done wrong. Here a whole church court has recognized its failure to uphold proper procedure and not only apologized, but expressed its regret.
As part of this recognition, the Presbytery urged its members to “read all SJC decisions, especially those that pertain to cases in which our Presbytery or our members were involved.” The SJC decision and concurring opinion clearly identify where there were failures of procedure by the Presbytery and Session in this case.
Covenant Presbytery is to be commended for not seeking to conceal its past oversights and mistakes, but to learn from them for the future and to direct the people to the SJC Report where those oversights and mistakes were catalogued.
Remind
The Presbytery honed in on the specific issue that was such a grievous oversight by the Temporary Session (largely consisting of elders from IPC Memphis, the host church for the May 21, 2024 Presbytery meeting): the lack of specificity in the indictment.
The men were told they violated the Fifth and Ninth Commandments in the indictment. The indictment quoted from the PCA Constitution regarding those Commandments, but there were no specifics regarding when, where, and how the Law of God was (allegedly) breached by their conduct.
This left the Jonesboro 7 wholly unable to prepare a defense, since they weren’t told how they sinned only that they did. In fact when the Jonesboro 7 pleaded with their Session to tell them what they were accused of, TE Jeff Wreyford – their pastor at the time – wrote them: “it seems disingenuous for you to continue to insist that you do not know what you are being charged with.”2
This curious interpretation of what an indictment requires (or doesn’t require) was embraced by Covenant Presbytery when she denied the appeal of the Jonesboro 7.
The Presbytery Representatives, including a nationally-renowned lawyer from Arkansas, defended the defective indictments even before the SJC.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Assembly will have the opportunity to consider whether to uphold our polity and/or to reform our judicial procedures. Additionally the Assembly will take crucial votes regarding the personnel who comprise our GA Committees and Judicial Commission as well as for the staff who administer the daily operations of the denominational agencies.

Thanks to last year’s overture from the Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (PMV), a broad consensus regarding officer qualifications and character seems to be emerging in the PCA. This much-needed respite from debates on sexuality and abuse has given the PCA the luxury to focus on other issues that may seem less exciting, but may be more significant.
This year’s Assembly will focus largely on three main issues: Polity, Procedure, and Personnel. The Assembly will have the opportunity to consider whether to uphold our polity and/or to reform our judicial procedures. Additionally the Assembly will take crucial votes regarding the personnel who comprise our GA Committees and Judicial Commission as well as for the staff who administer the daily operations of the denominational agencies.
A number of men have prepared guides to and analyses of the overtures as they prepared for GA. Some of them have been made available to others; this is not an attempt to sway votes, but to aid the brethren in their own preparations:
TE David CoffinRE Howie DonahoeTEs Jared Nelson & Scott Edburg (Polity Matters Podcast)TE Fred Greco
Whether you’re an elder or not, I’d encourage you to consider the commentary provided by these brothers. It will help you to better understand and to talk with the elders and members of your congregation about the issues before the Assembly.
I. Presiding Officer
The first vote of the Assembly will be to elect a new moderator. TE Fred Greco did a superb job in the role at the PCA’s Semi-Centennial Assembly. An attempt to elect him “moderator for life” was ruled out of order at the close of last year.
By custom, this year’s moderator will come from among the PCA’s Ruling Elders, since last year’s moderator was a Teaching Elder.
For Prayer: Ask the Lord to grant the Church a moderator who is clear, compassionate, and competent to efficiently guide the Assembly through the business. Pray God will give the moderator wisdom in the appointments and rulings he will make.
II. Previous Overtures
One of the first votes of the Assembly will be whether to ratify the Amendments to the Book of Church Order that were passed by the 50th General Assembly. This year there are three items the 51st Assembly may ratify:
Item 1: The titles of pastor, elder, and deacon may be used to refer only to men ordained by a church court to those offices.
Item 2: Officers in the PCA must conform to the biblical requirement of chastity in their convictions, character, and conduct.
Item 3: Any confession from a person coming as his own accuser must be reviewed by the person(s) offended before a Church Court approves an official confession.
For Prayer: Ask the Lord to grant unity to the PCA regarding decisions on these items and to promote truth, righteousness, and justice in all the Courts of the PCA.
III. Polity
1. Review of Presbytery Records (RPR)
Among the most important works of the General Assembly is the examination of the minutes of the 88 presbyteries that comprise the PCA. This is a necessary component of our polity and ensures consistency and fairness across the spectrum of the PCA.
Each year a committee consisting of (up to) one representative from each presbytery examines the minutes of the presbyteries to ensure the presbyteries are upholding the theology of the Westminster Standards, balancing the rights and responsibilities of the congregations and ministers who comprise the Presbyteries, and correctly recording the actions of the Presbyteries.
Holding one another accountable, spurring one another along, and encouraging the brethren is a crucial aspect of Presbyterianism. The RPR committee meets this week; its report is usually worth careful consideration.
At last year’s General Assembly two presbyteries were referred to the Judicial Commission (SJC) due to irregularities in their minutes. For example, Metro New York Presbytery will have to report back on how it has fulfilled the corrective actions mandated by the SJC to this year’s Assembly (see WS Pod Episode 27 for more).
2. Preaching (Overture 3)
Last year the PCA saw a number of congregations depart for independency or more progressive faith communions over the issue of women’s roles (see WS Pod Special Episode for more).
Even though some churches have left the PCA due to a desire for women to preach, other congregations continue to push the envelope on the matter. Pee Dee Presbytery has proposed granting a section of our Directory of Worship (Chapter 53) constitutional authority and specifying that only “qualified men” may preach.
In our day there is great confusion both in the Church and the culture. Language games and equivocations abuse the plain meaning of words, which require us to further clarify our position on preaching: what it is and who may do it. The Overture says much more than that only “qualified men” may preach, but that seems to be the focus of the attention. The definition and description of a sermon contained in BCO 53 is a needed addition to our Constitution.
(See WS Pod Episode 9 for an interview with the author of this overture or this recent episode of Presbycast).
3. RUF Affiliation Agreement
At last year’s Assembly, there was prolonged debate over a new standardized Affiliation Agreement that RUF National desired to have implemented across the denomination.
TE Zach Byrd of PMV successfully argued before the Assembly last year that RUF National Committee must submit any substantial change to the review and control of the General Assembly.
As the new “Affiliation Agreement” was crafted for consideration by the Richmond Assembly, careful attention was paid to the relationship between a campus ministry of RUF, the presbytery of which the RUF campus minister is a member, and the RUF National and Regional Coordinators.
For Prayer: Ask the Lord to bless the Presbyterian Church in America and keep us faithful to our historic polity and more rigorously, zealously, and charitably to apply the biblical principles Christ has given to govern His Church.
IV. Personnel
1. Nominating Committee
The Report of the Nominating Committee is one of the Assembly’s few “orders of the day.” At this time dozens of men are elected to serve on the boards (committees) for the agencies of the Presbyterian Church in America as well as her Standing Judicial Commission and special committees.
These committees are responsible for ensuring the staff and agency coordinators execute the policies and priorities of the General Assembly. These committees recommend to the Assembly who will serve as Agency Coordinators (e.g. Covenant College President, MTW Coordinator, Stated Clerk, etc.).
As a Presbyterian communion, the heads of staff for our missionary and discipleship organizations (e.g. MTW, RUF) are not styled “Presidents” as in the case of many other faith communions, but “Coordinators.” This is because the heads of staff for the PCA committees are ministers of the General Assembly and not executives with broad powers. This is another way in which the grass-roots nature of the PCA is manifested.
2. Election of the Stated Clerk
The Administrative Committee annually recommends a candidate to the Assembly to serve as Stated Clerk. Frequently, this election is simply a formality with the current clerk receiving overwhelming reelection. There have been some exceptions, for example at the 1986 General Assembly there was much back and forth regarding the resignation of inaugural Stated Clerk Dr Morton H Smith.1
The current Stated Clerk’s tenure has not been without controversy. In 2021 there was objection to his continued service on the SJC while simultaneously serving as interim Stated Clerk; historically when a judge on the SJC is elected Stated Clerk, he resigns his position on the SJC. As interim clerk, however, TE Chapell continued to participate in the SJC until the Assembly elected him Stated Clerk at which point he did resign. But many brothers believed he should have resigned or abstained during his service as interim.
In 2022 there were many questions as to whether the Stated Clerk had been or continued to be a member of the “National Partnership,” a caucus group advocating for progressive causes within the PCA. TE Chapell denied ever having been a member of the now-defunct Partnership and while emails claim him as a member, there is no evidence he actually participated in the National Partnership.
Read More
Related Posts:

Other than prayer, the best way Old School Confessionalists can support the agencies of the PCA at this time is by searching for more men who share a commitment to robust, Old School Presbyterianism who will be willing to serve on the permanent committees to help shape the policies and priorities of the College, the Seminary, MTW, MNA, etc. It’s not enough to serve on a General Assembly CofC! Instead of neglecting the Agencies of the PCA, let’s be willing to serve them on the permanent committees.

The PCA is comprised largely of three groups. In 2015, TE Bryan Chapell described these groups as “traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals.” I don’t like the label he chose for my segment of the PCA; I prefer the label “Old School” or “Confessionalist.”
By the way, I don’t think anybody likes the label he chose for their group, but – as I have written elsewhere – the unified dislike of the three labels suggests TE Chapell was at least over the target.
Regardless of what label is proffered, there are largely three groups who are united together in the Presbyterian Church in America. The two groups on each end of the spectrum both profess a love for the PCA, but their interests in the PCA are shaped by different concerns.
Love for the PCA

But there are others in the PCA who are drawn to the PCA not necessarily because of her robust Westministerian theology and her historic polity. They are eager to see how the PCA with her institutions and cultural cachet can influence society to restore people, places, and things. Their love for the PCA seems more centered on the PCA’s Agencies and Institutions and what the PCA represents for the culture. Their love for the PCA is exhibited especially in an unflinching and enthusiastic support for the PCA’s College and Seminary because of the opportunities for witness and cultural engagement that are afforded to the PCA through the institutions brought in to the PCA with the RPCES. Likewise, this segment of the PCA seems excited about the possibility of planting 120 churches a year until 2030 and are therefore wholeheartedly committed to MNA’s models, assessments, initiatives, and programs.
This is not to say the “traditionalists” are not motivated for evangelism or that those on the other side are not committed to the essentials of the Reformed Faith. The “traditionalists,” however, have been rather lackluster regarding enthusiasm for the institutions brought in with the RPCES as well as the other Agencies of the PCA. Their attention is to doctrine and the slow, but steady growth from discipleship in the ordinary means of grace.
A Pointed Critique of the PCA’s Agencies
On a recent episode of the Westminster Standard Podcast (WS Pod), we discussed the change that has taken place in the PCA since 2018 and the role of blogs and podcasts in that transformation.
In 2018, the National Partnership reflected on the success they had enjoyed in shifting the trajectory of the denomination. But six years later, former members of the now defunct partnership are decrying the General Assembly as “broken” and others share their disappointment with the PCA’s renewed commitments expressed in confessional fidelity and clarity.
In the episode, one of the guest commentators relayed some anecdotes shared with him based on experiences church members had with a couple of specific PCA Agencies (i.e. Covenant College and RUF) as well as his own perception of a Covenant College promotional video.
He pointedly expressed concern that some of the PCA agencies were failing to disciple men in particular, but instead accommodating cultural values he viewed as having diverged from historic Christian emphases.
At least one employee of the College has understandably expressed strenuous objection to the guest commentator’s critique. I note several things in this regard.
First, the opinions and views expressed on the WS Pod are not necessarily those of Jude 3 & the PCA, First Presbyterian Church, the Tennessee Valley Presbytery, or the PCA, but only those of the individual speaker who offers a particular opinion or viewpoint.
Read More
Related Posts:

Earlier this month, the SJC’s ruling was sent to the parties. TE Stephen O’Neill was one of the faithful elders who helped present the case of RPR before the SJC and he joined the podcast to discuss the ruling of the General Assembly in this matter. The SJC is to be commended for its work on this case. The SJC clearly performed a thorough analysis of what MNY presbytery has both done and left undone. The Commission expressed awareness of steps taken already by MNY presbytery to correct the delinquencies in this matter. But the SJC also noted what the MNY presbytery has done so far is “clearly inadequate.”

On “Reformation Sunday” in 2021 a priestess in The Episcopal Church took the pulpit at Trinity PCA in Rye, New York where Craig Higgins serves as senior pastor. The lady paused after reading a portion of Scripture and promising to return to read the rest of the pericope at the end of her “teaching,” she said with a smile.
She went on “teaching” for quite some time. She talked about sin and the grace of God, she warned about self-righteousness and resentment, she asserted American Christians should pay more attention to the teachings of the “Calvinist theologian Karl Barth,” lamenting that Barth’s theology has not caught on in American Churches, and she extolled the freedom that is found in Christ alone to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
News of what had taken place at Trinity PCA in Rye, NY scandalized many in the PCA.
When a ruling elder from another presbytery raised questions as to how such a thing could be done in a PCA Congregation, the Metro New York Presbytery (MNY) investigated. The representatives of the Session and TE Higgins asserted they take no exceptions to the relevant portions of the standards related to whether a woman may preach in public worship. The presbytery then closed the investigation without finding any basis for charges.
When the Review of Presbytery Records Committee (RPR) of General Assembly examined the Minutes of MNY on this matter, many members of RPR were puzzled as to how MNY arrived at its conclusions. Accordingly and with only one dissenting vote, RPR recommended the matter be referred to the General Assembly’s Standing Judicial Commission, since there appeared to be particularly glaring violations of the PCA Constitution in this case.
Read More
Related Posts:

Covenant Presbytery took up the Jonesboro matter again; this time with the hope of reconciliation between members of the Jonesboro congregation and the original Session. This is very good news. It would be a wonderful testimony if the Presbytery not only reconciled with the Jonesboro 7, but also with those who left the visible church following the abuse by the original temporary Session largely from IPC Memphis. While the actions of that temporary Session have been nullified by the PCA General Assembly, there are nonetheless lingering personal, relational, and spiritual consequences due to the way judicial process was “abused” by the temporary Session.

Seven heads of households from a PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas met with their temporary Session. They explained to their elders at that meeting their desire to consider candidates for pastor other than the current church planter (and a member of the temporary Session). The men were shocked by the temporary Session’s response. The temporary Session’s actions would likewise shock and scandalize many from across the PCA. You can read about the travails and vindication of the Jonesboro 7 here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five.
The Principle of Non-Intrusion
In the Fall of 1834, wealthy and powerful Lord Kinnoul selected Mr Robert Young to serve as pastor of a Presbyterian congregation in Auchterarder, Scotland of which Lord Kinnoul was the patron. The congregation had the opportunity of sitting under Young’s ministry for a period of time. When the moment came for the congregation to determine whether to approve the man to be their pastor, the congregation decidedly rejected him:
only two individuals, Michael Tod and Peter Clark, could be found to express approbation by signing the call. Five-sixths of the congregation, on the other hand, came forward solemnly to protest against his settlement [installation].1
The congregation requested their patron, Lord Kinnoul, select another man to serve as minister. But Lord Kinnoul refused and took the matter to the civil courts.
On what was very likely a cold day, March 8, 1838 a Scottish court issued a judgment against that Auchterarder congregation, which stated in effect, “in the settlement of pastors, the Church [presbytery] must have no regard to the feelings of the congregation.”
The little congregation appealed, but on May 2, 1839 the appeals court ruled the opinion of the congregation was “considered of no value in any way…” regarding the selection of a pastor.2
There were numerous similar cases in the Scottish Kirk at this time; the civil courts determined regarding the selection of ministers: “No regard was to be paid to any opinions or feelings of the parishioners.”3
But the people of God continued to protest to the Scottish presbyteries, insisting they should have the right of approving a minister. When the church courts refused to heed their pleas, the people vacated the church buildings and formed new congregations; they would not accept a minister forced upon them by the civil government or the presbytery. The intrusion of the government and church courts into the selection of a congregation’s minister is deeply offensive to the principles of biblical church polity.
Thomas Brown summarizes:
During the whole of the Church’s history it had been held that the call of the people was essential before a minister could be settled. The congregation must invite before the Presbytery could ordain. Here were cases, however, one after another, in which the parishioners were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the presentee. Was the call, then, to be treated as a mockery?…Was it to be tolerated that, the members of Christian congregations must submit to have obnoxious presentees forced on them?4
This led to what is called “The Great Disruption” of 1843 in which several hundred ministers departed from the Kirk of Scotland, being committed to the principle that neither the civil government (e.g., an aristocratic patron) nor the church courts may “intrude” upon a congregation’s right to select her own minister. They formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
This “non-intrusion principle” is now universally accepted as vital to presbyterianism.
The ‘Non-Intrusion Principle’ & the PCA?
The principle underlying the Great Disruption of 1843 is at the core of the PCA’s Book of Church Order (see the article I wrote at PCAPolity.com for more on this). A congregation’s right to select her own minister is nearly absolute. No church court may force a minister upon a congregation without its consent, not even a temporary Session.5
This makes what happened in Jonesboro, Arkansas all the more remarkable and scandalous.
Following that meeting with seven heads of households, the temporary Session (largely comprised of elders from wealthy and influential IPC Memphis) investigated, indicted, and summoned the seven men for trial because they objected to the Session’s preferred course of action: to have one of the Session’s own number considered first for the position of pastor.
During the trial, however, no evidence was presented of the men’s guilt. Nonetheless, IPC Memphis Ruling Elder David Caldwell did testify at trial that he had a feeling the Ninth Commandment was violated by the Jonesboro 7.6 Ordinarily, feelings are not admitted into evidence in the courts of the PCA. But in this case, the PCA General Assembly’s Judicial Commission (SJC) noted the “basic principles of due process” required by the PCA Constitution were violated by that temporary Session.7
RE David Caldwell was later elected to be the Moderator of Covenant Presbytery in 2024. As moderator, his role is to ensure meetings and debate are conducted in accordance with the PCA Constitution.
The temporary Session found the men guilty, censured them, and barred them from the Lord’s Table as well as participation in congregational meetings, which also meant they could not vote on the call of a pastor (as some SJC judges noted during their review of the Session’s actions).
When the men appealed their decision to Covenant Presbytery, the temporary Session resigned and recommended the MNA Committee of Covenant Presbytery close the little church plant in Jonesboro, calling its culture toxic.
What was it that made the congregation toxic? Was it that seven households objected to the man whom the temporary Session – a group of men largely from IPC Memphis who did not live in Jonesboro – wanted to offer to the congregation?8
It is unclear what made the church plant’s culture toxic. But you can imagine the impact that label had on the members of Christ Redeemer PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Faithful elders across the denomination are working to further perfect and refine our polity in hopes that the abuse of process endured by the Jonesboro 7 and others is not repeated.
The Cost to the Church
The Jonesboro 7 and their families represented upward of 40% of the congregation. The temporary Session understandably did not inform the rest of the congregation of the investigation, indictment, and trial of the Jonesboro 7, yet nonetheless a cloud settled over the congregation for some time as a result.
When the judgment of the temporary Session was finally announced and notice of appeal was given, the little congregation was in utter disarray. You can get a sense of the pain and hurt felt by the congregation at this meeting where some members of the temporary Session explain their decision to resign and recommend the church plant be terminated by Covenant Presbytery.
Indeed, the Jonesboro 7 persevered through the abuse of process by the temporary Session and the erroneous decisions of Covenant Presbytery and were ultimately vindicated by the PCA General Assembly. But not all the members of the church plant persevered through the congregation’s difficulties, which the temporary Session brought upon them.
While the biblical polity of the PCA prevailed and vindicated the Jonesboro 7 against the usurpations by a temporary Session of elders largely from IPC Memphis, there have still been costs.
A number of the church plant’s members and regular attenders were so shocked by the abuse of process and the bad report that was given to Covenant Presbytery by the former members of the Session that they have left the visible church entirely.
Read More
Related Posts:

While many presbyteries will grant an exception to the Westminster Standards to a man who believes worldly recreations are permissible on the Sabbath, are presbyteries granting exceptions also for worldly entertainment and commerce on the Sabbath? And are candidates and officers in the PCA stating the full extent of their differences? A difference with the “recreations clause” that asserts it is lawful to go on a walk or participate in a pickup ball game is quite a different category from a difference with the “recreations clause” that asserts it is lawful to pay money to watch professional athletes exhaust themselves on a ball field. In that case, one’s “recreation” seems to be simply watching others engage in recreation; this is “vicarious recreation,” I suppose. But in that case, it is not only the professional athletes who are being employed. 

We are told this Lord’s Day has a big game happening. Brad Isbell informs us it is called a “Super Bowl.” We gather from Facebook that some Presbyterians will be watching this game at a Brewery.
The Presbyterian Church in America confesses that the Scripture teaches the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath and a day for both resting ourselves and giving rest to others.
Yet perhaps the most common difference stated by ministerial candidates in the PCA is with the “recreation clause” in the Westminster Standards. Most PCA Presbyteries will grant a man some sort of an exception to that aspect of our Confession.
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 (WLC 117).
Many officers in the PCA, in good faith, believe the Scriptures do not require people to abstain from worldly employments and recreations on the New Covenant Sabbath, the Lord’s Day.
The “Recreations” Exception
Understandably many PCA Courts have judged such a difference with our Standards does not strike at the vitals of religion. Who could object to a father and son throwing a ball between morning and evening worship or letting the little kids run in the yard after lunch while mom and dad get a nap?
While there is lively debate about whether such practices are what was intended by the Puritans at Westminster when they referred to “worldly…recreations,” that is usually what is cited by officers holding this view.
Nonetheless, some are more broad in their views of what is permissible “recreation” on the Lord’s Day. I recall a candidate coming before the Presbytery of the Missippi Valley (MVP) who asserted he would have no problem with people attending an early service on the Lord’s Day so they could make it to the beach for the afternoon. The members of MVP asked him a lot of questions about his view, but they let him in and he ministered fruitfully for years in that presbytery.
All this to say, there is wide latitude afforded by the PCA Courts to those whose views and even practices differ from what the PCA confesses the Bible to teach about the Christian Sabbath and recreations on the day.
Social Justice & the Sabbath
The Sabbath is not simply about a cessation of activity. In Mark 2 Jesus begins to correct the legalistic and burdensome Sabbath doctrines of the Pharisees. His disciples were criticized for eating grain from the field. Jesus famously rebuked the Pharisees explaining: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27).
When God instituted the Sabbath at Creation, He did so – according to the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) – because mankind needed rest. The rest was especially to be given particularly to those in lower and vulnerable stations of life. Moses is explicit in his final sermon that the Sabbath was not only for householders and the wealthy but also children, enslaved persons, foreign workers, and dumb beasts. God’s people are to provide rest to all who are within their societies:
…your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you (Deut. 5:14).
Read More
Related Posts:

The Jonesboro 7 had suffered long and hard; they had been falsely accused, falsely convicted, barred from the Lord’s Table, but finally the Lord had vindicated His lambs, and He vindicated them through the ordinary Presbyterian process. It just took a while. But God did more than vindicate His lambs.

Editorial Note: What follows relies on official court filings and recollections by observers of a hearing before the PCA General Assembly’s Standing Judicial Commission.
This is Part Five in a series. You can read Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four. I have also written about this matter on PCA Polity. I have also collaborated with Zach Lott and TE Jonathan Brooks here to highlight the faithful submission of the men to the edicts of the Session.
You may listen to the Westminster Standard episode with Paul Harrell and Dominic Aquila here as Mr Harrell discusses his experiences and God’s faithfulness in trial.
A growing church plant in Jonesboro, Ark. was nearing the point of becoming a particular congregation of the PCA. A meeting for October 2020 had been scheduled to petition Covenant Presbytery for particularization and to elect officers. Seven men from the congregation, however, had concerns about TE Jeff Wreyford, the man called by Covenant Presbytery as church planter; they perceived him as too progressive, insufficiently focused on cultivating a distinctively Reformed and Presbyterian congregation, too quick to give up the pulpit, and overbearing.1
They took their concerns to both TE Wreyford as well as the Temporary Session overseeing the work; they indicated they would like to consider other candidates for pastor rather than TE Wreyford, whom the Session preferred to offer to the congregation.
The Session responded to the concerns of these men by investigating, indicting, convicting, and censuring the men. After the men appealed Session’s judgment, TE Jeff Wreyford resigned along with the rest of the Session, who were all on staff or elders at IPC Memphis.
TE Ed Norton travelled down from Memphis to Jonesboro to be part of a meeting to announce the Session’s resignation to the congregation and to inform them of their options going forward, since the Session was recommending closing the church due to the trouble the Session perceived in the congregation.
The meeting, audio of which was provided, was tense. Numerous questions were asked at the meeting. Members objected to not being consulted regarding the severance paid to TE Wreyford. Others wanted the Session to wait until the discipline case ran its course rather than give up on the little church mid-stream.
One man wondered what would happen if the Jonesboro 7 were exonerated on appeal. TE Norton explained he was unable to go into details of the case, but promised,
“Let’s say the commission comes back and they find for the Jonesboro…individuals … for me personally, I’d come back and apologize, because that’s what Christians do. We openly and readily confess…that’s part of the process…We are repentant…that’s part of the process…there’s never health in any body of believers unless there is confession and repentance, so you would find me coming back.”
The Presbytery Judicial Commission denied the appeal of the Jonesboro 7. So the men took their case to the General Assembly and prayed that God would grant them impartial judges, judges who were concerned for evidence, elders for whom words would have meaning, and elders who would be faithful to their vows to uphold the Scripture and the PCA Constitution.
A Lengthy Season of Waiting
Readers will recall Presbytery declined to give up on the church plant and instead appointed a new Session to oversee the work there.
Despite a new Session, the judgment of the old Session still hung over them; the men were still prohibited from partaking, by faith, in Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine at the Lord’s Table. The men were still excluded from voting in any congregational meeting because of the judgment against them by the old Session. As such, it was necessary to appeal the case to the General Assembly.
An appeal to General Assembly takes time; it is worthy to remember the trouble began August 31, 2020 when the “Jonesboro 7” raised concerns with the Session regarding the Session’s preferred candidate for pastor. The Session sent a “Letter of Admonishment” with demands on September 9, 2020; Covenant Presbytery later ruled the letter imposed unlawful injunctions upon the men on May 18, 2021.
But just before Presbytery’s ruling against the Session, the men were indicted on May 5, 2021 by their Session for violations of the Fifth and Ninth Commandments. The Session tried, found them guilty, and barred them from the Lord’s Table in July 2021, which they appealed to Covenant Presbytery; Presbytery denied the appeal May 17, 2022. On May 23, 2022 the “Jonesboro 7” finally appealed to the PCA General Assembly. Their hearing before a panel of the Assembly’s Judicial Commission (SJC) was October 31, 2022.
I note these dates because it is important to recognize how long the process sometimes takes in order for justice to be rightly done and rightly received. In such times, it is vital to wait on the Lord, to remember those who suffer for the sake of Righteousness are blessed, and that God will vindicate His Name and His cause in His own time.
The Jonesboro 7 were represented at the hearing before the SJC by TE Dominic Aquila, a former SJC judge and past Moderator of the General Assembly.
Defending Presbytery’s Judgment
The hearing before a panel of the SJC was conducted virtually on October 31, 2022. It had many memorable exchanges, some of which will be conveyed in what follows.
Covenant Presbytery was represented before the SJC by TE Robert Browning, the Clerk of Covenant Presbytery and also on staff at IPC Memphis as well as RE Josh Sanford an employment lawyer from Little Rock, Ark. TE Tim Reed, who served on the Presbytery’s Judicial Commission assisted on the Presbytery’s Respondent team also.
Prior to the hearing, each side submitted Briefs framing the case. Presbytery’s Brief was curious in that it spent three of its eight pages summarizing the facts of the case rather than making a defense of the Presbytery’s findings. When the Presbytery’s Brief finally does begin to make its case, it draws from facts not related to the original charges or trial and seems somewhat to fixate on the fact the Jonesboro 7 had a former SJC judge, TE Dominic Aquila, helping them prepare their defense. All of which are irrelevant to a finding of guilt on the matters for which the Jonesboro 7 were indicted.
Improper Evidence? Or any Evidence?
Presbytery’s Respondents asserted in their Brief that the trial audio and transcript did not reveal any admission of improper evidence nor a denial of proper evidence. The Presbytery attempted to establish sufficient evidence of guilt by means of Prosecutor TE Mike Malone’s closing assertions:
“the transcript and audio recording of the trial summarized by the Prosecutor showed sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellants were guilty of the offenses for which they were charged.”2
This is an important point; the SJC judges would later query not whether there was improper evidence of guilt admitted, but whether there was any guilt established. One Presbytery Respondent would concede before the SJC panel there was not much evidence put on at trial. Much of the hearing would center on questions from SJC judges asking not whether there was “much” evidence, but whether there was even a modicum of evidence.
Why Didn’t They Complain?
Covenant Presbytery’s Respondents would try to argue the claim of the Jonesboro 7 regarding the indictments being unconstitutionally vague was invalid because they did not complain (BCO 43) against the action of Session in drawing the indictments the way Session did. The Respondents attempted to portray the Jonesboro 7 as guilty rogues for not complaining against such indictments.
Covenant Presbytery tried to use the lack of a complaint against the unconstitutional indictments to show the Jonesboro 7 had a “disregard for those who were exercising proper spiritual oversight.”3
But what Covenant Presbytery’s Respondents failed to consider is that the PCA Constitution does not permit intermittent appeals, i.e. to complain in the midst of judicial process (BCO 43-1). A member of the SJC panel would later point this out to the Presbytery’s Respondents.
The only option open to the Jonesboro 7 was to see the process through and suffer under a process the SJC would later describe as having been abused. But as we’ll discuss later, the men’s use of process would later be proffered as evidence of guilt by Covenant Presbytery’s respondents.
As noted in Part One, this is perhaps an opportunity to further perfect the PCA Constitution.
The Indictments Were Valid…
Throughout the process, the Jonesboro 7 pressed their claim that the indictments against them were unconstitutionally vague. Presbytery’s Respondents countered that since the “Appendix G” to the BCO is simply advisory, the Session did not have to provide the specifics to how the men had sinned “in the days leading up to and following August 3, 2020…” in violation of the Fifth and Ninth Commandments. The Presbytery’s Brief did not interact at length with BCO 32-5, which states,
In drawing the indictment, the times, places and circumstances should, if possible, be particularly stated, that the accused may have an opportunity to make his defense. (emphasis added)
In denying the appeal, Covenant Presbytery asserted the phrase if possible provides “discretion to a court in specifying the particulars of ‘the times, places and circumstances’ in drawing up an indictment.”4 Covenant Presbytery’s interpretation of BCO 32-5 in the Harrell case is outrageous and does violence to the fundamentals of justice.
The SJC would later correct Covenant Presbytery’s fallacious reasoning and remind them the phrase, “if possible,” establishes a burden on the prosecutor and does not grant discretion to the Court. The PCA General Assembly would later describe the Temporary Session’s failure to include specifics in an indictment as, “unfair to an accused and violates basic principles of due process as required by our standards.”5
It is impossible to overstate the weight of Covenant Presbytery’s error on this point. The members of Covenant Presbytery would do well to adopt something enshrining the basic principles of due process in their Standing Rules, since a number of influential members of their Presbytery apparently failed to grasp basic principles of fairness and due process in this case (and continued to do so even in the Supplemental Brief; see below).
Until corrective action is taken in Covenant Presbytery, what happened to the Jonesboro 7 by a Session of Elders largely from IPC Memphis could happen again to anyone under that Presbytery’s jurisdiction.
Presbytery’s Arguments Not Accepted by SJC Panel

Read More
Related Posts:

Despite the “unfair” process deployed against the Jonesboro 7 by the Temporary Session, the men nonetheless demonstrated the strength of their commitment to the Scripture, to their membership vows, to Presbyterian Church government, and to the Reformed Faith. After the Jonesboro 7 appealed the decision of the Temporary Session to Covenant Presbytery, the Temporary Session resigned and recommended the church plant be closed. This left the congregation with little spiritual care and oversight.

Zach Lott and six other men from a small church plant in Jonesboro, Ark. wanted to see a Reformed and Presbyterian church in their town; they wanted to be part of the PCA. Covenant Presbytery had dispatched TE Jeff Wreyford to the small city as the organizing pastor. The work was going well, but Lott and several others were concerned about the trajectory of the work and the philosophy of ministry of TE Wreyford.
They had detected some “progressive” tendencies in the organizing pastor.1 They perceived a “controlling and unyielding nature” in TE Wreyford’s ministry. They also believed TE Wreyford’s philosophy of ministry did not sufficiently emphasize Reformed and Presbyterian distinctives, but instead focused on what would make the “church most appealing to the masses.”2 And finally they were frustrated by how frequently TE Wreyford was absent from the pulpit; they wanted a pastor who would preach the whole counsel of God, but TE Wreyford seemed “quick to give up the pulpit,” they believed.3
Accordingly, when it seemed the church plant was moving closer to particularizing as a congregation of the PCA, Lott and six other men approached both the organizing pastor and the Session expressing their desire for other candidates to be considered when the time came to call a pastor.
The Session’s response to their concerns was not what they anticipated.
In response to the concerns expressed by the Jonesboro 7, members of the Session emphasized the qualifications and credentials possessed by TE Wreyford.
Also present at the meeting was TE Clint Wilcke of the Midsouth Church Planting Network; he suggested that if the men did not agree with Pastor Wreyford’s philosophy of ministry, then they might need to find “another denomination” and “the PCA isn’t it.”4
The men wanted an ordinary Presbyterian and Reformed Church. One of the men put it this way,
…we wanted that teaching, we wanted that meat. We wanted something of… substance. We wanted a reformed Presbyterian church here, PCA church.5
How curious that the “Coordinator/Catalyst” for the PCA’s Midsouth Church Planting Network, TE Clint Wilcke, would suggest that such people find a different denomination if that was the sort of church they wanted.
Despite the objections and concerns of the seven church members, the Session continued to press forward with their belief TE Jeff Wreyford should be offered to the congregation for the position of pastor.
When the men, the Jonesboro 7, did not withdraw their objections to TE Jeff Wreyford being offered as pastor, the Session investigated, indicted, and found them guilty of violating their membership vows as well as sins against the Fifth and Ninth Commandments. The men appealed the Session’s judgment, but the Session – largely comprised of pastors and ruling elders from IPC Memphis – took the added step of leaving the men suspended from the Lord’s Table even while their appeal made its way through the courts.
After the Jonesboro 7 appealed the Session’s judgment, the Session resigned.
Suspended from Communion at Christmas
As noted in other articles, the judicial philosophy apparently embraced by the elders on the Session was peculiar. They had not provided the men with specifics as to their alleged sins. A panel of the SJC would note later the men could not mount a defense at trial, since Session had not told them what their sins were particularly, but instead only that they had generally and vaguely violated the Fifth and Ninth Commandments at some point in “the days leading up to and following August 3, 2020.”6
But nonetheless, despite suffering under a Session which the SJC would note “abused” the process, the men were committed to being PCA. So they submitted to the discipline and waited on the Lord’s deliverance.
The weight of the Session’s actions hit home for Zach Lott on Christmas Eve. He and his family were visiting an ARP congregation in North Carolina where his brother was a pastor. He tells it this way,
I approached [my brother] to ask whether or not I could take communion, knowing that my prospects were not good. Even though my brother is an ARP minister, he has many friends in the PCA, and he keeps a PDF of the BCO on his iPad. He wanted to know specifically what the censure entailed. I explained that, even though the judgment is technically suspended during an appeal, there was a provision in the BCO permitting the Session to withhold the Table from us during the appeal process.
Read More
Related Posts: