What God did in the midst of great suffering was remarkable. God used this situation to knit together a church family, to teach them to wait upon Him, and to show them His goodness even in the midst of great loss and strain. As I talked with one of the “Jonesboro 7” he testified to how God vindicated His word that those who suffer for the sake of righteousness are indeed blessed. The men and their families learned of the sufficiency and kindness of God even in affliction.

Editorial Note: What follows will be controversial and disturbing. Reader discretion is advised. In preparing this series, official documents and public comments have been extensively used to compose the narrative. No attempt is made to assign motives to any of the parties in this case. Reference will be made to inferences drawn by the judges on the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission as they carefully reviewed the case and noted the process was “abused” and offenses “imagined” by a Temporary Session of Elders against the Jonesboro 7. Any objection to the use of the term “abused” should be directed to the SJC Judges rather than the author of this series who simply reports the judgment of the PCA General Assembly regarding the actions of the Temporary Session in this case.
They wanted to see a gospel centered PCA congregation planted in their town, Jonesboro, Arkansas. It was harder than they thought it would be. In this instance, it was especially hard.
Tucked within the thousands of pages of the 2023 General Assembly Handbook is an innocuous sounding decision from the PCA Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), Harrell, et. al. v. Covenant Presbytery.
As I reviewed the SJC Decision, I was frightened, I was angry. I was concerned that what happened to the men whom I have come to call “The Jonesboro 7” could happen to anyone in the PCA.
The SJC even stated this about what the Temporary Session, comprised of Teaching and Ruling Elders from the Independent Presbyterian Church of Memphis, did:
the failure of the Indictments to include the specificity so obviously available is  unjustifiable under BCO 32-5, and we find that the broad Indictments were abused to the prejudice of the Accused who were not adequately informed of the charges against them.1
You read correctly; the PCA General Assembly used the verb abused in reference to the actions of a Session.
The “Jonesboro 7” were subjected to treatment that the General Assembly declared was “unfair” and a violation of “the basic principles of due process as required by our Standards.”
2 Note well: it was not some ephemeral, complicated, or arcane procedure that was violated by the Session, but basic principles.3
In the next weeks, I will be publishing analysis of the case, but I want to begin with several lessons I have learned that I believe others will find beneficial. It is important to consider the lessons of the case first, lest the articles analyzing the actions, testimony, trials, and travails of the case be found too discouraging or disturbing. I am also aware I may not be able to hold all my reader’s attention to the end of the series; a man has to know his limitations.
The lessons, I believe, are what matters most now. I believe the whole of the PCA can learn at least seven things from the tribulations of the “Jonesboro 7.”
1. The Judges on the SJC are Men of Great Integrity
We all have SJC decisions with which we disagree. But even as we disagree at times with some of their decisions or with the way they reviewed (or didn’t!) a lower court’s actions, I believe we should nonetheless admire the commitment and faithfulness of the SJC judges.
The Harrell decision demonstrates the profound integrity of the 22 judges who reviewed this case and their dedication to uphold the PCA Constitution. They are clearly men who take their vows seriously and who are willing to feed Christ’s lambs. The judges on the SJC showed a clear devotion to the cause of Christ and the welfare of His people as they unambiguously repudiated the actions of the Session.
The judges on the SJC did not hesitate to point out a Session had “abused” or done what was “unfair” as shown by the record of the case. When a Session falsely charges seven of Christ’s sheep under its care for daring to disagree whether a man should be “offered to the congregation as a candidate to serve as its pastor,” the SJC will uphold justice and vindicate Christ’s lambs against their accusers.4
One SJC judge, RE Jim Eggert, went so far as to say of this Session: “Session had no lawful authority to insist that the Accused stop resisting the Session’s attempts to ‘recommend’ the minister to the congregation”5
It would have been very easy for the SJC to side with the Elders from wealthy, tall-steepled IPC Memphis and deny the appeal of seven “dirt kickers” from a small city in Arkansas. But instead, and like their King, they took up the cause of the poor and helpless simply because it was right. We should be encouraged the Judges on the SJC love to do justice.
We should be thankful to be in the PCA and we should praise God he has granted judges who serve in this way, judges for whom words and vows mean something, and judges who have pastoral hearts.
2. Process Takes a Long Time
The ordeal for the “Jonesboro 7” began in August of 2020 and did not end until March of 2023 when the SJC decision vindicating them was officially released. During that time they were suspended from the Lord’s Table and deprived of the right to vote or speak in any potential congregational meeting. Even though ordinarily an appeal has the effect of suspending a censure, their Session took the step of leaving the censure in place while the men appealed.
Many times the “Jonesboro 7” could have simply walked away from Christ Redeemer Church and the PCA because of the treatment they endured at the hands of the Session of Elders from Memphis. But these men were committed to the Church and committed to the PCA. So they stayed the course and pursued justice through the process.
It was a painful season.
But because of the pain these men were willing to endure, because these men loved the Church enough to persevere through that pain, perhaps others will learn from their experience and learn from the SJC decision and future Sessions will refrain from the actions similar to what the PCA General Assembly declared to be “unjustifiable.”
Read More
Related Posts:

We need to do better by the Reformed faith. We should not shun words like beautiful, nuance, winsome, and missional, but find ways to use them and use them properly: to extol the virtues of the Westminster Standards as a philosophy of ministry and summary of the Scripture’s teaching.

Language shapes the way people think and heavily influences the judgments people make. George Orwell illustrates this well in 1984. We see this in secular culture; simply by adding the modifier affirming to a product, policy, or institution, it is easier to brand opponents of the policy, product, or institution as some sort of -phobic.
Who could possibly be opposed to something that is affirming and who could survive being labeled some sort of -phobic? Language manipulates the way people perceive issues and even whole groups.
Even in the Church labels influence the way people in the Church relate to one another and how we see ourselves relative to others in the communion. Of course our primary identity flows out of Christ as saints, beloved, and children. Nonetheless in a communion as large as the PCA it is helpful to recognize where one stands along the spectrum.
In 2015, TE Bryan Chapell wrote describing his impression of three main groups in the PCA: “traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals.” Nobody seemed to like Chapell’s designations, and the volume of blogs on all sides objecting to the way Chapell described the different groupings suggests he was probably near the target(s).
While I am not a fan of being labeled a traditionalist, the three words Chapell used to describe the three groups were respectful and accurate enough for people to grasp what he was talking about in 2015 without a whole lot of nuance or elaboration. There are simply differences of ministry perspective, philosophy and priorities across the PCA, and people generally fall into one of about three broad categories. Chapell’s three words effectively distinguished the three groups.
Shaping the Message
Not all labels are as neutral as the ones in TE Chapell’s 2015 article. If an elder is described as winsome, missional, outward facing, and/or gospel centered where would we assume he falls in the Chapell Taxonomy above? If a congregation tends to focus or speak much on “beauty” and “authenticity,” where would you tend to assume it falls on the Chapell Taxonomy?
Recently a church website posted selections of references given for pastoral candidate TE James Kessler, including one from now Stated Clerk Chapell.
Stated Clerk Chapell asserted,
James [Kessler] is courageous and gospel centered. He is very insightful of people. James has multiple gifts so he has an extraordinary ministry. He is a true gem. James has been a leader in the denomination, especially of those pastors who are ‘gospel centered.’
Are there PCA pastors who are not “gospel centered,” is there a portion of the PCA which is not “gospel centered?” What would the taxonomic label for this group be? “Law Centered?” We can only speculate, and that is not the purpose of this article.
My purpose is, however, to highlight how men on the more confessional or “traditionalist” end of the PCA spectrum have done a poor job using language to communicate the beauty, loveliness, and grandeur of simple, ordinary, plain, vanilla, Old School, Reformed, Westminster, Confessional, Ordinary Means of Grace Presbyterianism.
Read More
Related Posts:

While I ordinarily prefer the old tunes over the new, this is not about a matter of style. I am not asserting General Assembly worship should only feature old hymn and psalm tunes. There is a place for new tunes, but new tunes should be introduced in a circumspect manner. TE Sean Morris recently noted regarding worship in Scotland that it was the rural churches there who were demanding new tunes for the psalter. Whether we sing old or new tunes, my concern is that General Assembly worship ought to manifest our Reformed Principles of congregational participation and covenantal dialogue with God.

In my previous article, I reflected on the public worship often offered at PCA General Assembly in contrast to my experience of public worship in local PCA congregations. Worship at the General Assemblies typically seem more like concerts with performers than Presbyterian worship services.Presbyterian worship services ought to be God’s people interacting with their Covenant Lord, as RE Brad Isbell explains about a typical PCA worship liturgy:
The dialogical pattern of God speaking by his Word and his people responding in prayer, praise, and confession is obvious.
While many General Assembly worship services may have a liturgy that reflects a dialogue, that dialogue is often eclipsed by the complexity of the forms of the worship service
Worship & Presbyterians
Worship is the most important thing we do; worship is the reason we were created. Worship is one of the three crucial markers of the true church:
This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. (WCF 25:4)
Occasionally PCA candidates for licensure and ordination will be asked “What are the three marks of the Church,” and they will respond incorrectly with the three marks of the Belgic Confession.
1 In our Westminster Standards, the PCA confesses the three marks of the true church to be:

The Preaching of the Gospel
The Administration of the Sacraments
Public Worship

Since the PCA confesses public worship to be one of the three marks of a true Church, we ought earnestly strive to offer pure worship, biblical worship in all our public assemblies. And General Assembly ought to serve as a model, an exemplar of biblically ordered, confessionally faithful Reformed worship.
Worship & the Congregation
In the worship at our General Assemblies, the congregational singing is typically drowned out or emaciated. As I reflected on that assessment initially I thought perhaps that was the result of poor acoustics in the convention halls. But then I remembered the hymn and psalm singing during the assembly business is typically quite powerful as TE Larry Roff simply accompanies the Assembly on the organ.
2 The problem, it seems, is not one of acoustics; the problem is one of complexity and form.
This was also noticed by TE Kyle Brent who took to Twitter to highlight both where the Memphis Assembly did well and where there were opportunities for improvement in terms of public worship:
I’m more inclined towards traditional worship music and instrumentation but I much preferred the music and instrumentation of the second service of the #pcaga despite it being more “contemporary.” Why? It aided, and didn’t hinder, congregational singing.
Read More
Related Posts:

The conclusion of the 1982 Assembly marked the end of an era of expansion, optimism, and pioneering. Most of those initial leaders would pass on by the time of the half-century mark. Still, the Church had now absorbed an entire denomination with its various agencies, missions, presbyteries, and churches. Most realized that true union was not merely organizational and that large sub-cultures would need to continue in mutual trust for the PCA to grow as wished. The next decade would test those values and unity. 

Below is another excerpt from TE David Hall’s new book, Irony and the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. Hall has graciously provided a few samples of his latest volume to give the readers of Mid the Pines a fresh look at the first history published in conjunction with the PCA’s 50th Anniversary.
David Hall joins a long line of scholars to chart God’s faithfulness to His Church. The excerpt below details the efforts to build on the union between the PCA with the RPCES in joining and receiving. The now larger PCA experienced growth and growing pains as new questions regarding confessional subscription emerged. Read on below or purchase TE Hall’s volume available as kindle or hardcopy.
The 1982 (10th) Assembly: Union to Avoid Duplication
By David W. Hall
By the time that the 10th GA convened, returning to the campus of Calvin College with several other NAPARC partners, it was clear that enough PCA presbyteries had approved joining with the RPCES. Leading up to this Assembly, though, proponents on both sides of the issue were recruiting supporters to the very beginning of RPCES Synod. The new denomination had nearly quadrupled its membership in its first decade and doubled the number of presbyteries. Teaching elders, as had become the norm, had a nearly 2:1 ratio to ruling elders for these important debates.
When the Assembly began, Francis Schaeffer was invited to give a keynote address to this Assembly as part of the celebration of the J&R. Retiring Moderator Paul Settle announced that by more than a 3/4 margin the RPCES had approved the J&R with a 322-90 vote. Similarly, the PCA had obtained the requisite votes to effect union (25 presbyteries in favor, with none opposing); thus, the RPCES commissioners were soon included as registered commissioners of the 10th GA.  Notwithstanding, by an 18-7[1] vote of the PCA presbyteries, the invitation to the OPC failed by one presbytery vote to receive the needed supermajority support and was discontinued for a time.[2]
Before Dr. Schaeffer spoke to the now-united churches, a few border disputes among presbyteries needed adjustment, and this was assigned to a sub-committee to reconcile as soon as possible. The other largely formal matters below (Min10GA, 320) were approved as this committee concluded its work and was dissolved.
The Committee requested the Committee on Administration also to appoint legal counsel to work with the general counsel of the RPCES to assure that wills, trusts, corporations, and property matters are properly cared for in the transition process.
Steps were taken to assure that trustees in the RPCES with fiduciary responsibilities will not be placed in jeopardy when their responsibilities are transferred to corresponding members in the PCA.
The Ad Interim Committee wishes to thank the Coordinators, staff members, committee chairmen and others in the PCA who cooperated so willingly and fully with the efforts to facilitate the transition procedures of the Joining and Receiving. Appreciation is also expressed to our brethren in the OPC and RPCES who have so graciously worked with us as we have explored the possibility of ‘effecting one church.’
Though we regret that the OPC will not at this time be participating in the Joining and Receiving process, we pray that our sovereign God will allow us to continue already successful joint efforts in ministry and to expand our common witnessunto a day when we may indeed realize the hope of organizational unity to His glory.
Read More
Related Posts:

The PCA has a structure for bringing charges against members and officers, and it requires two witnesses of an alleged offense. These two witnesses may be either people or material (e.g., police report). But these scandal-mongering blogs bypass the judicial system of the Church entirely and instead slander the good name and reputation of the PCA as well as her officers and members by spewing these allegations publicly.

We frequently hear about abuse in the PCA. In 2017 concern regarding abuse dominated the secular news media following disturbing revelations surrounding men named Weinstein and Epstein. Concern for this sparked a number of hashtags such as #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen.
Now – years later – some within the Church have built a platform for themselves as “Abuse advocates” purporting to expose abuse within the Church and particularly the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Even before the recent General Assembly had concluded, Emily Belz in Christianity Today decided there was an abuse crisis in the PCA. She bases her assertion on anonymous, self-appointed “abuse advocates” who say there is.
What is Abuse?
Abuse is hard to define. In Michigan, the worldlings assert abuse is using the wrong pronouns to hurt someone’s feelings. For those influenced by the world, calling a person to repent of his or her sins is abusive.
The PCA must guard against this view of abuse. Some may remember a former PCA pastor, who – facing potential ecclesiastical discipline fled with his congregation into independency – decried it was spiritually abusive to encourage people in the hope of sanctification and the mortification of sexual sins and vile passions.
In contrast to these worldly definitions, the PCA received a report from a committee that studied domestic abuse and sexual assault (DASA); the report defines abuse this way:
persistent maltreatment that causes lasting damage. In this sense, abuse is a misuse of power. Misuse of power can take several forms (physical, verbal, positional, etc.), but the essence of abuse is that it is a misuse of power which wounds another person physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. (pp. 2306-7; emphasis original)
That is a helpful definition; it recognizes abuse beyond physical forms, e.g., spiritual and emotional abuse. It also highlights that abuse constitutes a “misuse of power,” which is true, but at the same time Christians must guard against allowing a Marxist view of power-dynamics to inform what we consider to be abuse.
Nonetheless, a definition of abuse such as this helps us to distinguish abuse from other sinful patterns or behaviors. Certainly, abuse in its general sense is simply the “misuse of a thing;” all sin is therefore abuse. But if my five year old hits his sister with a Brio train track, is he abusing her?
In one sense yes, but – given that she (for now) outclasses him in terms of height, weight, and strength – in another sense no, since the power differential clearly favors the one on the receiving end and his mother will quickly correct that sinful behavior.
Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish abuse from other expressions of sin and depravity. Often it is quite subjective and comes down to Justice Stewart’s test: “I’ll know it when I see it.”
Alleged Abuse in the PCA
Apart from the aforementioned DASA committee report, abuse seems to be used with alarming frequency in the PCA courts lately. Even the British press covered a situation in which a prominent Nashville pastor was suspended by Presbytery due to abusive behavior. Elsewhere there are instances in which church planters have stepped down and/or are facing discipline because of abusive patterns.
In a more infamous situation, an urban church planter was recently exonerated of claims of abuse (i.e. bullying and sexual harassment) by the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). The basis for exoneration was the evidence:
Where unambiguous digital or documentary evidence existed, however, it strongly supported the arguments of the Accused, providing objective proof against these specific allegations of sin. This fact affected the Panel’s assessment of the credibility to ascribe to testimony for which there was no tangible evidence or for which there were no third-party witnesses. After carefully examining all the evidence, The Panel unanimously agreed that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof in this case. (p. 14)
While there is little doubt in this situation improprieties occurred, the SJC did not believe the evidence supported the serious allegations against the accused.
The Biblical Standard
The aforementioned case was a source of much consternation and seemed to be a key turning point for many to conclude there is an “abuse crisis” within the PCA. Twitter and other social media were filled with reactionary outcry in the wake of the decision.
This outcry broadened into rage against the Church judicial system as a whole aiming to depict the PCA as a nest of abusers. New hashtags, customized for the PCA, have been promoted and new websites have been launched: some claim to provide resources for victims; others – more disturbingly – publish sensational allegations aimed at discrediting well-respected saints and harming the reputation of the Church.
In one particularly egregious instance, an anonymous ex-wife of an unnamed PCA pastor makes outlandish claims about an abuse cover-up by one of the most well-respected women in the PCA. But tellingly, the blogpost is riddled with errors of fact, which undermine the veracity of its claims.
I will not link to examples of the sites alluded to above because I do not wish to further publicize outrageous and unsubstantiated claims that malign Christ’s bride. Part of the trouble with these blogs is they vent claims of decades’ old grievances against the PCA as well as members or elders in good standing without any actual evidence.
They make assertions, which are readily believed by scandal-hungry people and provide fodder on which gossipy “abuse fetishists” will graze for weeks to the detriment of their souls.
The PCA has a structure for bringing charges against members and officers, and it requires two witnesses of an alleged offense. These two witnesses may be either people or material (e.g., police report). But these scandal-mongering blogs bypass the judicial system of the Church entirely and instead slander the good name and reputation of the PCA as well as her officers and members by spewing these allegations publicly.
Perhaps there are some who believe the standard of evidence (two witnesses) required by the PCA is too high.
Read More
Related Posts:

The High Priest was entirely disqualified to stand in God’s presence. He bore all the sins of the people of God and the stink of their sins was unbearable. God removed the defiled garments demonstrating to Zechariah that God indeed forgave the sins of His people and will not abandon His people despite what they deserve.

God’s faithfulness to His people is astounding; His loyalty to His people is staggering for its unwavering character. God’s people do not earn this astounding, staggering loyalty and faithfulness; in fact, they do not deserve it at all. Even more remarkable is that God’s faithful loyalty to His people is also characterized by rich and deep covenant love. The Hebrew Church had a single word for this: hesed.
Because of God’s faithful, loyal covenant love for His people, despite their sins God does not abandon them. The Old Covenant Church sang about this reality:
Praise is due to you, O God, in Zion, and to you shall vows be performed. O you who hear prayer, to you shall all flesh come. When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions. (Psalm 65:1–3)
And this truth remains precious to the New Covenant Church:
Praise waits for thee in Zion; all men shall worship thereand pay their vows before thee, O God who hearest prayer.Our sins rise up against us, prevailing day by day,but thou wilt show us mercy and take their guilt away.(Trinity Hymnal No. 372)
The saints in the Old Covenant Church knew their sinfulness well. And the psalm suggests, they also knew well the attacks of the Devil and his minions: to remind the people of their sinfulness, unworthiness, and lack of deserving any good thing. When under such attacks by the Devil, God’s people can draw strength from the truths of Psalm 65.
Because the Accuser has a limited number of tactics to deploy against God’s people to rob them of their joy or entice them to sin, he uses those same, tired tactics frequently.
I. Old Offenses
God’s people were cast out of the Promised Land because of their sinfulness and covenant breaking, but God did not cast off His people. He brought them back to Jerusalem and provided the means for them to rebuild the Temple.
Although the people were physically in the Promised Land, yet for many of them their hearts had not returned to the Lord their God. But God still did not cast off His people; instead he sent Haggai and Zechariah to call them to repentance afresh.
To encourage His prophet and to demonstrate His unfailing commitment to His Church, God gave Zechariah a vision of the unseen realms.
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. (Zechariah 3:1–3)
The prophet saw Joshua, the High Priest who represented the Old Covenant Church before God and God to the Church, clothed in filthy garments, wholly unsuited for ministry. The garments were filthy because of the people’s sinfulness.
There stands Satan, the Accuser, ready to lodge all manner of charges against the High Priest regarding the past sins of the people, which have defiled him and should render him disqualified for his priestly duty.This is a common tactic of the Devil: bring up old sins to rob God’s people of our joy, to discourage us from seeking God’s grace, and to try to disqualify us in our own minds and the minds of others from God’s service by alleging: Behold, a sinner! Look how bad this person is! Look what he did! Look what he said! Behold, a sinner!
This demonic tactic is effective because what the Devil or his minions allege – in this regard – is often true. We have committed horrible sins; we have brought grief upon ourselves and others. We rightly deserve to be clothed in shame and filth.
But God’s people must not allow these demonic attacks to prevail in our minds or hearts; we must remember neither our sins nor the Devil’s accusations define us.
II. New Righteousness
Zechariah’s vision did not end simply with the Lord’s rebuke of Satan’s accusations. The Lord acted to overcome the defilement of sin, to overcome the truth of Satan’s allegations.
Read More
Related Posts:

There is no need to despair because of what the General Assembly did not do this year or because of a few hostile and misleading headlines. Instead, those who genuinely and passionately care about preventing abuse, ministering to abuse survivors, and calling abusers to repentance (remember that is the purpose of the Church Court), should study our Constitution and seek ways to make the Church Courts more effective at fulfilling the roles given to them by her King.

Amending the Constitution of the PCA is a difficult task by design; it takes the approval of two General Assemblies and the consent of two-thirds of the Presbyteries. It is not something that can be done lightly or speedily. Many on the conservative and/or confessional side of the PCA were frustrated by the pace at which the PCA amended her Book of Church Order (BCO) to fortify the Church against the Saint Louis Theology/Revoice.
TE Charles Scott Williams first raised the alarm regarding the deviations emanating from Nashville and Saint Louis in 2016. Now, seven years later, the PCA seems to have reached a consensus on what our Constitution needs in order to close the door to “Side-B” and Revoice. But it will not be until 2024 until the most recent of those amendments can go into effect.
Likewise this year, many were disappointed when the General Assembly rejected proposed amendments to her Constitution that purported to help the PCA respond more effectively to allegations of abuse.
I. On the “Tragic” Assembly
Some have decried the actions of the Assembly in rejecting these proposals. If you read the news or follow social media, you might presume the PCA is rife with all manner of abusers.

In an article published in Christianity Today, Covenant College alumna Emily Belz decrees: “The Presbyterian Church in America Has an Abuse Crisis Too.” In which she cites self-styled, but unnamed, “advocates” who assert the PCA typically handles things badly.
The Baptist News Global announces: “Conservative Presbyterians reject four proposals to curb sexual abuse. But we must question: what would these four ‘rejected’ proposals have done to ‘curb’ sexual abuse?
The Tennessean claims the PCA limits who can be called pastor, elder, and deacon while at the same time rejecting “abuse measures.” But did the PCA actually reject abuse measures? And would these measures actually do what they claimed?

These are the sort of headlines about which TE Tim LeCroy warned us. They seem to imply the PCA is negligent regarding abuse. But is there proof for the headlines?
II. On Not Being Reactionary
If you believe the (social) media hype, the PCA is a communion that cares more about ensuring women are not addressed as pastor or deacon than about protecting women and other vulnerable people from abuse. TE Charles Stover has already written thoughtfully on this matter and exhorted us to remain calm.
Rather than react hastily to media headlines, the Church ought to remedy well rather than speedily any defects in her Constitution.
The Church must not yield to reactionary rhetoric and manipulative reporting. This is not to say reforms are not needed or would not be helpful. But neither ought we assume there is a crisis simply because some people loudly assert there is one.
As saints and as elders in the Kingdom of God, we must not submit to the tyranny of headlines and Tweets, but instead take stock of what is true, where we are, and what our duty is.
A. What Is True?
Does the PCA care more about who can use the titles of ordained office than protecting people from abuse? Well, maybe. But is that wrong? Isn’t usurping a church office a form of abuse? Isn’t gaslighting someone into thinking she’s a deacon – when our Book of Church Order clearly declares she cannot be a deacon – a form of abuse? Perhaps abuse is not even properly understood.
But I will not grant the premise: it is not the case that the PCA cares more about regulating the use of officer titles than protecting the abused. People in various media have asserted this, but they have not proven this point.
B. Where Are We?
The PCA did not simply reject four overtures aimed to protect victims from abuse.
It referred back the proposal related to background checks for further perfection. In doing this, the Assembly recognized merit in the proposal, but also that the overture was not yet ready – as currently written and amended by the Overtures Committee – to be implemented by the Assembly. Amending the PCA Constitution does not work on the schedule of the news cycle, so the Church must not react to headlines.
Indeed, the Assembly rejected an entirely novel proposal to permit atheists (i.e., fools; cf. Psalm 14:1) to give testimony in the courts of the Church. To add this provision to our Constitution would undermine the teaching of our Confession of Faith on Oaths and Vows:
The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred (WCF 22:2).
How can the members of a Church Court in good conscience administer an oath to an atheist, given what the PCA confesses regarding oaths and vows?
Yes, the Assembly also rejected Overture 14, which aimed to restrict Christian lawyers from participation in the Courts of the Church. Why did the Assembly do this? Because the proposal demonstrated partiality and was entirely “without Biblical authority.” Can you think of a better, more honorable reason to reject a proposal?
However, the narrative peddled by the media is completely undermined by the Assembly’s ratification of a very important change to our constitution, which does more to protect alleged victims of abuse than any of the failed overtures sought to do: the Assembly adopted Item 8.
Read More
Related Posts:

God is faithfully raising up new generations of men to shepherd His people and hold the PCA to faithfulness. Let us continue to pray His blessing upon His church for her next 50 years.

One former PCA Moderator characterized the Memphis Assembly as “the most significant in a generation.” The PCA has been at a crossroads (as noted among other places here, here, and here) as she decides whether to be a confessional, Reformed Church committed to walking in the old paths of piety and discipleship or a broadly evangelical, culturally missional, reactionary communion.
In Memphis, the Assembly chose to walk in the old paths of the Reformed faith as evidenced by both the acts of the assembly and the men elected to her permanent committees, agencies, and Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). In addition to the greater manifestation of unity, a return to growth numerically and in terms of giving, increased elder participation, and unity on chastity for officers, there were other, less obvious encouragements not to be overlooked regarding the health of the PCA. God is richly blessing the PCA.
1. Rising Ministerial Standards
Wednesday’s Assembly-Wide Seminar featured reflections and aspirations from four elders from the PCA’s founding generation. In his address, former Moderator TE Charles McGowan noted his recollection that the PCA was founded as a “big tent movement,” yet he remarked how the PCA has grown stronger and more “theologically focused.” He noted how in the early days, the PCA had received pastors who would not be received today, because our communion has become more “clearly and definitely Reformed.”
This is a welcome marker of good health for the PCA. Rather than loosening standards and confessional atrophy, the PCA’s expectations for ministers have become more robust as the denomination insists on a deeper commitment to Reformed Theology.
In his address to the First General Assembly, TE O. Palmer Robertson seemed to predict this very thing as he proclaimed,
By adopting the Westminster Confession of Faith as the basis for its fellowship and ministry, the Continuing Church takes its stand unequivocally for the faith once delivered to the saints…
…No narrowing fundamentalism is to mar the vision of this church as it searches out the implications of Scripture for the totality of human life. It is to the faith of Christianity in its fulness, as it relates to the whole of creation, that the Continuing Church commits itself. In humble dependence on the Holy Spirit to enlighten and empower, the Continuing Church commits itself to the Christian faith in its wholeness…
…Knowing his body to be one, we rejoice in the oneness we now experience, with all who are committed to the same precious faith. May the Lord of his church be pleased to hasten the perfecting of that unity with himself and among us, “until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ.”
TE Robertson’s proclamation those 50 years ago has proven true. The PCA is now more robustly Reformed with both high standards for officers and a zeal for the lost: to know Him and to make Him known. These increasingly high standards manifest a faith in God to sovereignly provide for His Church as we submit to the qualifications and the truths set forth in His word.
2. Commitment to Historic PCA Polity
The Hodge-Thornwell debate on church boards of the 19th Century continues to echo in the assemblies of the PCA. Overture 7 from Southern New England Presbytery proposed a small change to the Rules of Assembly Operation that required the committees and agency boards of the General Assembly to annually give account to the Assembly regarding their faithfulness to the Assembly’s instructions as well as submit any significant policy changes to the Assembly for approval.
This reinforces the PCA’s commitment not to have true “boards” for its agencies, but committees that are subservient to the General Assembly. In the old PCUS, the boards were the strongholds of liberalism and worldliness; the late TE Harry Reeder referred to this phenomenon not as “mission creep,” but mission exchange.
To prevent this, the PCA founding fathers designed a system of government to limit the power of PCA agencies by making them committees and dependent on the Assembly rather than with authority largely independent from the Assembly. You can read more about the development of and tension within the PCA’s polity in David Hall’s new volume surveying the PCA’s first half-century.
Fittingly at our 50th Assembly, the PCA reaffirmed her commitment to her historic ecclesiology as the Assembly adopted stronger language to hold accountable the permanent committees and agencies via the committees of commissioners.
This accountability promotes the health and efficacy of our agencies and committees; the permanent committees are able to develop vision and long-term strategies, while at the same time the General Assembly is able to more fully oversee their work and ensure a robust commitment to that Reformed faith of which TE McGowan spoke in his address. In this way both the permanent committees and committees of commissioners spur one another on to the fulfillment of the Great Commission and their specific missions.
Read More
Related Posts:

God is faithfully raising up new generations of men to shepherd His people and hold the PCA to faithfulness. Let us continue to pray His blessing upon His church for her next 50 years.

One former PCA Moderator characterized the Memphis Assembly as “the most significant in a generation.” The PCA has been at a crossroads (as noted among other places here, here, and here) as she decides whether to be a confessional, Reformed Church committed to walking in the old paths of piety and discipleship or a broadly evangelical, culturally missional, reactionary communion.
In Memphis, the Assembly chose to walk in the old paths of the Reformed faith as evidenced by both the acts of the assembly and the men elected to her permanent committees, agencies, and Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). In addition to the greater manifestation of unity, a return to growth numerically and in terms of giving, increased elder participation, and unity on chastity for officers, there were other, less obvious encouragements not to be overlooked regarding the health of the PCA. God is richly blessing the PCA.
1. Rising Ministerial Standards
Wednesday’s Assembly-Wide Seminar featured reflections and aspirations from four elders from the PCA’s founding generation. In his address, former Moderator TE Charles McGowan noted his recollection that the PCA was founded as a “big tent movement,” yet he remarked how the PCA has grown stronger and more “theologically focused.” He noted how in the early days, the PCA had received pastors who would not be received today, because our communion has become more “clearly and definitely Reformed.”
This is a welcome marker of good health for the PCA. Rather than loosening standards and confessional atrophy, the PCA’s expectations for ministers have become more robust as the denomination insists on a deeper commitment to Reformed Theology.
In his address to the First General Assembly, TE O. Palmer Robertson seemed to predict this very thing as he proclaimed,
By adopting the Westminster Confession of Faith as the basis for its fellowship and ministry, the Continuing Church takes its stand unequivocally for the faith once delivered to the saints…
…No narrowing fundamentalism is to mar the vision of this church as it searches out the implications of Scripture for the totality of human life. It is to the faith of Christianity in its fulness, as it relates to the whole of creation, that the Continuing Church commits itself. In humble dependence on the Holy Spirit to enlighten and empower, the Continuing Church commits itself to the Christian faith in its wholeness…
…Knowing his body to be one, we rejoice in the oneness we now experience, with all who are committed to the same precious faith. May the Lord of his church be pleased to hasten the perfecting of that unity with himself and among us, “until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ.”
TE Robertson’s proclamation those 50 years ago has proven true. The PCA is now more robustly Reformed with both high standards for officers and a zeal for the lost: to know Him and to make Him known. These increasingly high standards manifest a faith in God to sovereignly provide for His Church as we submit to the qualifications and the truths set forth in His word.
2. Commitment to Historic PCA Polity
The Hodge-Thornwell debate on church boards of the 19th Century continues to echo in the assemblies of the PCA. Overture 7 from Southern New England Presbytery proposed a small change to the Rules of Assembly Operation that required the committees and agency boards of the General Assembly to annually give account to the Assembly regarding their faithfulness to the Assembly’s instructions as well as submit any significant policy changes to the Assembly for approval.
This reinforces the PCA’s commitment not to have true “boards” for its agencies, but committees that are subservient to the General Assembly. In the old PCUS, the boards were the strongholds of liberalism and worldliness; the late TE Harry Reeder referred to this phenomenon not as “mission creep,” but mission exchange.
To prevent this, the PCA founding fathers designed a system of government to limit the power of PCA agencies by making them committees and dependent on the Assembly rather than with authority largely independent from the Assembly. You can read more about the development of and tension within the PCA’s polity in David Hall’s new volume surveying the PCA’s first half-century.
Fittingly at our 50th Assembly, the PCA reaffirmed her commitment to her historic ecclesiology as the Assembly adopted stronger language to hold accountable the permanent committees and agencies via the committees of commissioners.
This accountability promotes the health and efficacy of our agencies and committees; the permanent committees are able to develop vision and long-term strategies, while at the same time the General Assembly is able to more fully oversee their work and ensure a robust commitment to that Reformed faith of which TE McGowan spoke in his address. In this way both the permanent committees and committees of commissioners spur one another on to the fulfillment of the Great Commission and their specific missions.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Presbyterian Church in America at 50 is stronger, more committed to her Westminster heritage, more beautiful, more healthy, more orthodox, and more united than ever before. The PCA at 50 shows every sign of being a living, growing, vibrant Church. The PCA is worth fighting for because the PCA is worth having!

The 50th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America was a mighty demonstration of God’s grace and faithfulness to His Church.
The Presbyterian Church in America at 50 is stronger, more committed to her Westminster heritage, more beautiful, more healthy, more orthodox, and more united than ever before. The PCA at 50 shows every sign of being a living, growing, vibrant Church. The PCA is worth fighting for because the PCA is worth having!
The PCA General Assembly convened in Memphis, Tenn. Tuesday, June 12. This year’s Assembly was exceptional as it combined the regular business of the Church with numerous times of reflection, prayer, and thanksgiving in light of the 50th Anniversary of the PCA’s Founding in 1973. God was exceedingly kind, faithful, and generous to the PCA at this year’s Assembly.

Opening Worship & Election of the Moderator

At last report, 2290 elders (1559 TEs and 691 REs) gathered for the meeting of the General Assembly, which opened with a service of worship. The retiring Moderator, RE John Bise, chose the preacher for the evening, his former pastor TE Randy Thompson of FPC Tuscumbia, Ala. TE Thompson’s preaching matched the excellence of RE Bise’s work as Moderator last year.
Two men were put forward to serve as moderator. TE David Strain of FPC Jackson, Miss. offered TE Fred Greco. In his speech TE Strain emphasized the diligent service TE Greco has given to the church to help presbyters understand our polity as well as TE Greco’s qualifications to serve as Moderator of such a large gathering.
TE Charles McGowan of the McGowan Global Institute nominated TE Randy Pope. In his speech, TE McGowan emphasized TE Pope’s connection to PCA founding fathers TEs Jim Baird and Frank Barker; he concluded by asserting that if they were alive and could vote, they would vote for TE Pope as Moderator.
TE Fred Greco was elected by a wide margin (1077-739) to serve as Moderator. TE Greco serves on the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) and is pastor of Christ Church in Katy, Tex.

It is customary for the new Moderator to make a speech as he accepts the gavel; in this first speech, TE Greco paid tribute to his wife’s vital and generous support of his ministry, which he credited as enabling him to serve in the way he does.

Selected Overtures Adopted by the Fiftieth Assembly

Overture 7: Accountability for the Atlanta Staff & Permanent Committees
Throughout her history, there has been a tension in the PCA between being a “grassroots” denomination and a centralized denomination. In our early days, the PCA founding fathers would not even permit the central offices of the various agencies of the PCA to be located in the same city in order to further diffuse the influence of those agencies. After receiving the RPCES, the offices of the PCA Committees and Agencies were centralized in Atlanta.
At the 19th General Assembly (1991) in Birmingham, TE O. Palmer Robertson as Chairman of the Administrative Committee CofC, successfully repulsed an attempt by the Permanent Committees and their Atlanta staffs to wrest more control from the Assembly regarding policy and trajectory. At this the 50th Assembly, changes were instituted into the Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) to codify that the Permanent Committees and the Atlanta staffs are indeed accountable to the Assembly.

Overture 7 proposes the changes underlined above.
While Overture 7 (O7) did not initially garner a great deal of attention, some members of the PCA Atlanta staff reportedly indicated their reservations regarding this amendment at the Administrative Committee CofC meeting. After O7 became controversial, TE Zack Groff wrote a helpful summary of the issues. Overture 7 adds one sentence to the RAO requiring the Permanent Committees and Agency Boards to give account to the Assembly annually as to how they are fulfilling Assembly directives and/or any new policies adopted by the Permanent Committee or Agency Board.
By Tuesday, the Overtures Committee had wrested control of O7 from the various Permanent Committees and presented it to the Assembly for adoption with slight amendment. The overture passed overwhelmingly and went into effect immediately on Tuesday night around 10:00 p.m. What a kindness of our faithful God to transform an overture that was briefly controversial into a point of unity to help us begin the business of the Assembly.
This was one of the most important actions of the 50th General Assembly. As RE Melton Duncan noted on the largest and most influential podcast in the PCA, this overture reflected the “Spirit of 1973” as the Assembly moved to enable more closer review of every one of its agencies and committees. The adoption of this amendment is a step in the right direction of the Assembly reasserting control over its own Permanent Committees and Agencies and their Atlanta staffs.
Overture 13: Atheists in Church Courts
The longest debate at the Assembly concerned whether to admit atheists as witnesses in the church courts. The PCA Constitution currently permits only people who acknowledge belief in God as well as rewards and punishments after death to give testimony in PCA courts. The Constitution does not prohibit unbelievers, non-believers, or spiritualists from giving testimony in the Church courts; it only disqualifies atheists.
The Overtures Committee (OC) recommended against changing the PCA Constitution in this way. The OC reasoned such a change was unnecessary, since material evidence (e.g., police or medical reports) is always admissible. Others argued against adoption because of other unintended consequences. TE James Bruce of Hills & Plains Presbytery gave a superbly clarifying speech summarizing concerns regarding allowing those who deny the existence of God to bear witness in church courts.
A Minority Report on this matter was also presented to the Assembly given by TE Tim LeCroy. TE LeCroy’s report to the Assembly dwelt largely on hypothetical situations and seemed to be characterized by fear and suspicion regarding what the news media might say about the PCA. RE Steve Dowling, chairman of the OC, in his response called out TE LeCroy’s speech for some of its logical fallacies including mere appeals to emotion. RE Dowling also urged us not to fear men or the media, but to fear God in heaven.
RE Howie Donahoe gave a well-reasoned speech in favor of the minority report as he urged the Assembly to adopt the amendment proposed by O13.
The Overture was rejected by the Assembly in the most narrow margin of the week: 871-999 (53% against).
While I was nearly persuaded by RE Donahoe’s well-reasoned speech, I continue to believe the current witness eligibility standards are right and good. Church courts are fundamentally different from civil/criminal court. I believe this amendment was seeking to anticipate matters better left primarily to the magistrates to investigate and adjudicate (e.g., cases of abuse). The Church courts rightly must defer to the magistrate on such matters, since the magistrate is God’s deacon in his own sphere.
Overture 23: Chastity for Church Officers
Since 2018, the PCA Assemblies have met with the cloud of Revoice hanging over them. The 50th General Assembly overwhelmingly passed an amendment to clarify the chastity and sexual purity required of officers (elders and deacons) in the PCA:
…He should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his descriptions of himself, his convictions, character, and conduct.
There was little debate on this matter as 69% of the Assembly voted to close debate after hearing only one speech (that of TE Stephen Tipton of Gulf Coast Presbytery).2
There was apparently little need to debate the issue further. Overture 23 passed by a vote of 1673-223 (88.2% in favor).
If this amendment is ratified by the PCA Presbyteries, it should make the PCA entirely inhospitable to the Saint Louis Theology/Side-B/ “gay-but-celibate”/Revoice Movement. This amendment requires not merely celibacy, but chastity from church officers. It seems many of those who had long-opposed attempts to tighten and clarify our standards on sexual purity have now reached the point where they recognize the urgency and propriety of doing so. This is a matter for thanksgiving!
Overture 26: Ordination, Titles, and Clarity
Another proposed amendment that received significant debate involved whether unordained people may be referred to as pastor, elder, or deacon. Our Book of Church Order (BCO) clearly indicates all pastors, elders, and deacons are ordained. There are many congregations within the PCA who do not follow our BCO, but instead withhold ordination from those whom they call “deacons.” Other churches address unordained staff as “pastor.” This creates confusion as well as gives a false impression of who we are as a denomination and deprives the congregation of the blessing of more ordained leadership.
The proposed amendment would add one sentence to our BCO:
Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles connected to, the ecclesial offices of pastor, elder, or deacon.
The Bible uses words like elder (old man), deacon (servant), and pastor (shepherd) in both a technical, titular sense and a generic sense (I have given the generic sense in parentheses). The Apostle Paul references pastors as gifts to the church and gives qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Tim. 3, and Titus; this is the technical, titular sense of those words as it refers to the ordained officers of the Church.
But he also uses some of those words in a general sense (e.g., Rom. 13:4 in reference to Caesar as God’s servant/deacon).
This amendment would require churches to abide by what our BCO already requires and refrain from using generic words in a way that makes them sound “official.” This amendment is narrowly focused on the offices of pastor/elder and deacon. It does not address churches who have ordained deacons and unordained deaconesses, shepherdesses, or any other titles not connected to ordained office as those are matters of lawful latitude for the congregations of the PCA.
The Assembly approved Overture 26 by 74%. This is a good and narrow change to help us work toward greater unity within the PCA. It also represents a winsome attempt to show our brothers what their vows to the PCA Constitution require, which will hopefully help avoid sending requests for investigation of delinquent Sessions and officers (see BCO 40-5, 31-2).
Read more
2 It was I who moved the previous question in order to limit debate. After the vote was taken some members of the Assembly graciously and humbly enquired why I did so and they conveyed they wanted to have the opportunity to speak in favor of the proposed amendment. I believed the Assembly’s mind was not going to be changed by further debate (after 3-4 years of extensive debate) and so we should proceed to a vote. Nearly 70% of the Assembly agreed. I encourage those who desired, but did not have the opportunity to make speeches in favor of the proposed amendment to publish the speeches they wrote for this debate at the Assembly on their personal blogs or other news outlets. If you do not have a personal blog, I would be happy to publish your speech on my Substack. Please feel free to contact me.
Related Posts: