The mere abstinence from sodomite conduct – while at the same time speaking about, attending conferences focused on, and writing about one’s sodomite lust – is hardly to be considered “above reproach” (cf. 1 Tim 3), to “adorn the profession of the gospel” (cf. BCO 21-5, 24-6), or to be “free from all taint of what is lewd or salacious.” Bare abstinence from all sexual conduct does not meet the minimum standard for Christian behavior. All Christians – whether single or married – are called to chastity, so the claim of celibacy is not enough to show oneself called and qualified for church office.

In the Presbyterian Church in America, it seems we disagree on where “the line” is to be drawn for church officers and what it means to be “above reproach.” Our presbyteries are debating whether to ratify Overture 15 (Item 1) which reads:
Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
I believe the debate centers on the extent to which worldly concepts and ideas are permitted to shape the way potential officers conceive of and describe themselves. We disagree on how closely a man may come to describing himself according to his unnatural desires and still be qualified to serve Christ and His people in ordained office. It seems some see this debate as centered on simply, how worldly can a man be and not be disqualified?
I. The Main Debate: “homosexual”
Some argue there is nothing wrong with an officer who experiences sodomite lust being described by the national media as “gay.” They see nothing necessarily wrong with a man who conceives of himself as a homosexual ministering as an ordained officer in Christ’s Church. One side of the PCA insists a man who confesses to be homosexual is simply acknowledging unwanted same-sex attraction, which is no worse than a man acknowledging an unwanted attraction for a woman not his wife.
But others insist that while we may name our sins, we are not named by our sins. They argue for a man to describe himself according to his sinful lusts disqualifies him from ordained ministry. Their concern is that describing oneself as “gay” or “homosexual” indicates the man has bought into – or at least is unduly influenced by – a Post Modern Worldview in which the self and sexuality are virtually indistinguishable. Carl Trueman’s diagnosis is helpful to explain the concerns of many of those in the 54% of the General Assembly who voted to pass Overture 15:
The idea that sexuality is identity is now basic and intuitive in the West, and this means that all matters pertaining to sex are therefore matters that concern who we are at the deepest level. Sex is identity, sex is politics, sex is culture.1
As Trueman explains, the culture in which we minister views sex as fundamental to identity. Thus, many in the PCA argue a potential officer who describes himself according to a disordered and unnatural sexuality crosses the line of propriety and reveals such a man has succumbed to the disease Trueman has diagnosed in the wider society.
But there is another, less considered, part of Overture 15 (Item 1).
II. An Overlooked Aspect of the Conversation: “celibacy”
One recent author has claimed2 the PCA and other Bible-believing denominations have had same-sex-attracted ministers for generations who have ministered faithfully to the church in a lifestyle of celibacy.3
But the PCA constitution requires more than celibacy for faithful Christians and especially of men called to be officers in Christ’s Church. Celibacy for unmarried Christians is only the beginning of sexual faithfulness.
I am aware in our Post Modern Age that appealing to a dictionary for a definition is a rather risky proposition, but nonetheless: Merriam-Webster defines celibacy as follows:
not engaging in or characterized by sexual intercourse; abstaining from marriage and sex especially because of a religious vow.
But our confessional standards require more than celibacy, but rather chastity:
The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in all our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto (WLC138).
In our hyper-sexualized society, it might be easy to conflate celibacy and chastity, but they are not strictly synonyms.4 While they do have significant definitional overlap, they are different, yet related concepts. Merriam-Webster on chaste:
implies a refraining from acts or even thoughts or desires that are not virginal or not sanctioned by marriage vows; innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse; pure in thought and act; free from all taint of what is lewd or salacious.
Single Christians and married Christians are alike called to chastity. Chastity includes not simply abstinence from fornication, but also the setting of a guard over our thoughts, desires, and company that they all be chaste.
Read More

1 Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), 299.
2 n.b. the author’s use and appropriation of historical sources has recently been called into question by M. D. Perkins and the Presbytery of the Ascension (PCA).
3 Greg Johnson, Still Time to Care (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021). See also this podcast episode for a similar claim.
4 Indeed Merriam-Webster does seem to note the words are becoming conflated. But our Confessional Standards nonetheless recognize a difference between the requirements of chastity versus celibacy.
Related Posts:

Overture 15 would not declare the mere presence of homosexual desire to be disqualifying. While there may be a minority within the PCA who would bar anyone from office who confesses unnatural lust, overture 15 would not do that. Overture 15 is narrowly focused on barring from church office any man who describes, characterizes, or defines himself according to his sinful desire.

Words can be confusing. Last year in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), we learned a number of elders were unclear on the meaning of identity. This year a minority of the Overtures Committee tried to avoid the confusion regarding identity by proposing this amendment to our Book of Church Order (BCO) Chapter 7:
Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
The proposed BCO amendment is clear, succinct, and straightforward. It bars anyone from office who describes himself according to his sinful and unnatural lust.
There seems to be a great deal of hostility to the change proposed by Overture 15 (Item 1 before the Presbyteries), but I wonder how much of the opposition comes from misunderstanding what the proposed amendment would do rather than reading the plain language.
I. Confusion by the Stated Clerk
In an otherwise anodyne summary of the history and state of the PCA given at Southwood PCA in Huntsville, Alabama, Stated Clerk TE Bryan Chapell, PhD described the “present division” within the denomination as centered on homosexual desire and whether “the desire itself is disqualifying.”
The Stated Clerk gave an overview of his efforts “organizing people from both sides” at General Assembly to resolve this matter. He indicated he urged “the opposing sides” to “listen to each other” and invited them to collaborate “in the same room” to resolve the scandal surrounding homosexuality in the PCA. The Stated Clerk notes the meeting he organized resulted in an “agreed upon proposal” (presumably Overtures 29 and/or 31), which easily passed the Overtures Committee.
The Stated Clerk then proceeded to give background on Overture 15 and how it came to the floor. TE Chapell stated, “sadly, those who were not in the room” came with another proposal (i.e. Overture 15) in addition to the “agreed to proposal” (i.e. Overtures 29 and/or 31) produced by the group brought together by the Stated Clerk.
He then characterized the “very divisive” Overture 15 as proposing to amend our BCO to state regarding homosexuality, “the desire itself is disqualifying.”
Both the consensus proposal crafted by those invited by the Stated Clerk to a meeting and the proposal of those “not in the room” passed the Assembly and are now before the presbyteries for consideration.
II. Clarity from the Text
While some might commend the Stated Clerk for trying to bring consensus between the wings of the PCA regarding officer qualifications, the trouble here is how he mischaracterized Overture 15.
Later, in a Q&A portion at the very end of his presentation, the Stated Clerk described the issue as whether or not, “the same sex attraction itself is more heinous, so heinous that it is automatically disqualifying.” That is a surprising description of our intramural disagreement given there is currently no proposal to disqualify someone from office on the mere basis of experiencing unnatural lust.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the PCA, our standards and our vows are clear. We must abide by the Book of Church Order; we have sworn oaths together saying we believe it conforms to Biblical polity, so let us live together practicing what we have pledged and hold one another accountable for the honor of Christ, the purity of His bride, and the peace of His body.

I have heard it multiple times:
We follow the BCO except where it disagrees with the Bible…
or
But the Bible overrides the BCO.
Is it possible a denomination claiming to be Reformed would have a governing document that fails to submit to the Scripture? Is it conceivable the PCA, which historically confesses divine right church government (Jure Divino Presbyterianism) would adopt a subordinate standard at odds with the plain teaching of the Bible? Some seem to assume so.
I. What is the Book of Church Order (BCO)?
Many members of the PCA are likely unaware of what the BCO is. The BCO is part of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which means it is subordinate to the Scriptures. The BCO functions not as a summary of our doctrinal beliefs, but instead more like a practical manual for operations and procedures within the denomination.
We joyfully give thanks that God’s word has made clear “all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life.” But the Bible does not give us a blueprint or manual for how to do every single thing in the Church:
…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (WCF 1:6).
The BCO is drawn from the words and principles of the Scripture and applies them to the official functions in the life of the PCA.
For example, the Bible tells us congregations are served by elders and deacons and the Scripture gives us the qualifications of those offices. The Bible does not, however, go into great detail as to how we select men for those offices. What the BCO does is take the truth of Scripture on that matter and present it in a summarized and explicated manner that can be clearly and concisely applied in every congregation (e.g. BCO Chapters 7-9, 24).
This accomplishes at least two things:

It saves every Session from having to “re-invent the wheel” when electing church officers. The BCO provides a basic framework describing the qualifications and duties of the officers as well as the procedures for training, nominating, electing, and ordaining/installing officers. Anyone who has ever served on any board knows how helpful it is to have a starting point and a framework for any project.
It provides unity of practice and understanding across the denomination. This enables the thousands of churches in the PCA to hold one another accountable, because we have all agreed to follow the same rules and abide by the same standards. Where a church has deviated from the BCO, the other churches in her presbytery can call her back to faithfulness and integrity.

II. How does the Bible relate to the BCO?
The 66 books that make up the Bible comprise various types of literature (e.g. historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, “Gospel,” epistles, etc.), and the authors make use of various literary devices (e.g. metaphor, allegory, sarcasm, etc.) and sometimes no literary device at all, but are intended to be understood in a strictly literal sense. Moreover, sometimes the narrative is prescriptive and sometimes it is simply descriptive. All of this can make biblical interpretation challenging.
Since there is one Divine Author of the Scripture, it never truly contradicts itself, although some portions of the Scripture are more easily understood than others (cf. 2 Peter 3:15ff). Our Confession of Faith tells us how we can make sense of the difficult parts of the Scripture:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (WCF 1:9).
We acknowledge there are difficult parts of the Scripture, but we also confess the difficult parts of the Scripture are understood by the more clear portions of the Scripture either explaining them or helping us to see what those difficult portions both can and cannot mean.
But even then, there may be disagreement over the precise meaning and application of that portion of the Scripture. This is the case even with church polity.
For instance, there are numerous areas in which faithful Christians disagree on church government. For example, our Anglican neighbors believe the word presbyter and episkopos refer to two different types of church officials: the former a priest and the latter a bishop. Presbyterians, by contrast, believe the Scripture uses those two words interchangeably to refer to the one office of elder and his function as an overseer.
Read More
Related Posts:

While the use of the word deacon is somewhat varied in Scripture and church history, the constitutional Standards of the PCA clearly define that word for use within the bounds of the PCA. Why then is the word deacon used in such diverse and even contradictory ways by PCA congregations?

Modernism was characterized by a quest for objectivity and certainty, but it failed to deliver. Post-Modernism arose in response and questions all objectivity and certainty. Post Modernism thrives in the society of our exile.
Perhaps nowhere is the impact of Post-Modernism more glaring than in language.
Language is hard. The meanings of words evolve over time. For example, four centuries ago a “stew” was a reference to a bathhouse or brothel. Today a “stew” is a thick soup that is especially popular in colder months. But you can see the relationship between the archaic meaning and the current understanding of “stew.”
However, in our postmodern day the meaning of words has become almost completely fluid. Consider this somewhat absurd example in the meaning of the word literally as it is currently understood according to Oxford Languages: “in a literal manner or sense; exactly,” or “used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.”
So what does literally mean? I literally don’t know.
There seems to be similar trouble over the meaning of the word deacon in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Deacon in Scripture
The word deacon (and its feminine, deaconess) simply means servant. I am not going to do an exhaustive study of the word here; that has been done by others elsewhere. Nonetheless, a brief survey will help set the context.
Romans
It is used of Nero by Paul in Romans 13:4 – for he is God’s deacon (διάκονός; diakonos) for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Later in Romans, the Apostle Paul uses the same word to describe the woman who apparently carried Paul’s epistle to the church at Rome – I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon (διάκονον; diakonon) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well (Rom. 16:1, 2).
So it seems in Romans the word deacon does not have a technical, official sense (i.e., referring to a church office), but is rather used to describe both men and women who serve, whether in government or in the church.
Acts of the Apostles
Acts 6 is generally understood by Reformed Christians to explain the origin of the office of deacon by Christ through His apostles. Although the noun often translated deacon does not actually occur there, the verb form is used to describe the work the apostles and elders will not do, but to which ministry they will set apart seven men elected by the Church – And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve (διακονεῖν; diakonein) tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty (Acts 6:2, 3).
Interestingly, a noun form of the verb translated serve in verse two is used in verse four to refer to the ministry of the apostles and elders – But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry (διακονίᾳ; diakonia) of the word.
The words appearing in Acts related to what is elsewhere translated deacon don’t seem to have taken on a technical or official sense.
Read More
Related Posts:

The problem of lack of peace in the PCA is because we disagree regarding matters so essential as the three core marks of the Church (WCF 25:4, Worship, Sacraments, Gospel). If we disagree on these essentials, we will not agree on a united vision on the mission of the Church. These are not mere semantic disagreements.

I grew up in a city with a Presbyterian seminary where breakfast tacos are renowned. But I wasn’t a Presbyterian; I was reared Lutheran.
However, and through no fault of my parents, I became a Dispensationalist through the television ministrations of one wealthy former presidential candidate. He urged viewers like me to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” with the assurance that as I sought the blessing of the Jews in “their” city, I too would be blessed.

But in college, through the ministry of Rev. Irfon Hughes and the other elders at Hillcrest Presbyterian Church, I was introduced to a better, fuller way to understand the Scripture. Instead of trying to understand the Bible through the lens of current geopolitics and the news, I learned to see the Scripture as centered on God and His glory as He redeemed His Church through the blood of His Son.
This changed my whole understanding of the Scripture and, of course, my life.
I. Praying for the Peace of Jerusalem
Psalm 122 is not about praying for the Jewish ethnic group to hold a certain town, but rather the peace that flows from God’s love for, blessing in, and reign over His Church: the place where He meets with His saints.
There thrones for judgment were set,the thrones of the house of David.Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!May they be secure who love you!Peace be within your wallsand security within your towers!—Psalm 122:5–7
The PCA is troubled and not characterized by peace within her courts despite our vows placing a premium on peace. Both for members:
Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
And especially for officers:
Do you promise to strive for the purity, peace, unity[,] and edification of the Church?
I believe the absence of peace in PCA courts is the product of a lack of purity; we don’t agree on core matters of what it is to be a Reformed Church.
Note how Psalm 122 marvels at the “thrones for judgment…of the House of David” set in Zion immediately before calling the saints to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”
Right judgment must be established in the Church before the Church can have peace. To put it another way: purity must be secured before peace can be enjoyed; until the PCA unites to work for the purity of the Church, she will not have peace.
Our Confession reminds us there will be no completely pure church until Christ returns:
Particular churches…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.—Westminster Confession of Faith, 25:4
Westminster gives three marks of the Church, which together are a superb measure of church health:

The Gospel Rightly Preached (biblically)
Sacraments Rightly Administered (biblically)
God Rightly Worshiped (biblically)

Those three issues are at the core of our disagreements in the PCA.1
II. Confusion in the Marks of the Church
A. Biblical Worship
In a recent episode of the most influential and significant podcast within the PCA, Elder Doug Sharp noted the difficulty of recommending a PCA church to travelers because of the broad diversity reflected in our congregations, which is nowhere more pronounced than in worship.
1. What is Worship, and Who Leads It?
Recent events suggest there is not agreement on what public worship is in the PCA. A prominent congregation in New York featured a purportedly ordained woman “teaching” in the worship service (or was it just an event that looked like a worship service; the church website lists it under “sermons,” but the page itself says it was a “BIBLE STUDY”?).2
Whether the event was understood to be a bible study or a service of public worship remains ambiguous, but what is not unclear is that the Lord’s Supper was observed during this event, which raises another issue: the propriety of observing the Lord’s Supper without the preaching of the Word. It seems there is no unity of understanding in the PCA regarding the distinction between public worship and other activities of the Church.
The example of an Episcopalian priestess preaching (or was it teaching?) in a PCA congregation may be something of an extreme, but not unique. One former Covenant Seminary administrator even took to social media to celebrate his daughter the preacher at an event in another faith communion:

Related Posts:

When I was baptized in the Lutheran church, the minister asked my parents, “Do you renounce all the forces of evil, the devil, and all his empty promises?”
The devil and demonic activity are significant realities of life in this world, so it is not inappropriate that the Lutheran baptismal rite (and others) include an explicit rejection of the devil. But do we rightly understand the work of demons in this world?
In my experience we tend to give the devil either too much credit or too little attention.
When we yield to temptation, it’s far too easy to proffer a slightly more refined version of the child’s excuse (“the devil made me do it!”). Do you ever find yourself responding to sinful choices by asserting, “I’m under severe demonic attack!” when the reality is you simply haven’t been partaking deeply in the means of grace for some time? Or perhaps I am the only one who has experienced that?
We know Satan and his interns (i.e. demons) don’t often have to work very hard to get us to yield to temptation:
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (Jas. 1:14–15)
More likely, it wasn’t the devil who made you do anything; it was your own wicked desire. It’s not as though any of us are like Eve or Adam with wholly pure desires.
Three Goals of Demonic Activity
I do not at all mean to suggest the devil is not active in the world now that sin has entered into our race and corrupted our desires. The Belgic Confession (Article 12) summarizes ongoing demonic activity in this way:
The devils and evil spirits are so corrupt that they are enemies of God and of everything good. They lie in wait for the church and every member of it like thieves, with all their power, to destroy and spoil everything by their deceptions.
I will not be giving a thorough treatise on the origin and activity of Satan and his minions in this world. Nonetheless, as I see it there are three primary categories of satanic activity in Scripture.
A. Discredit the Church
The Scripture gives numerous instances in which Satan (whose name simply means adversary or accuser) brings charges against the Church of the Living God. For example Satan insists Job loves His Creator for mercenary reasons:
Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” (Job 1:9–11)
Much later Satan returns to accuse the Church – represented by the High Priest in filthy garments – but God refuses to allow Satan even to make his accusations:
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. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.” (Zechariah 3:2–4)
In that instance, Satan had many scandalous and glaring charges to bring against the Church; he wouldn’t even have to make anything up. But God refuses even to give Satan a hearing.
It’s not that God doesn’t want to hear how bad His people are (the prophets brought ample indictments throughout the history of the Kingdom of God), but rather God will not tolerate anyone to speak ill of His bride:
If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? (Romans 8:31–35)
B. Destroy the Church
Time and again the agents of the devil attempt to wipe out God’s people in order to scuttle God’s promise: Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Pharaoh and Israel, Herod and Jesus.
At one point in the history of the Church, the line of promise seemed to rest entirely upon one little baby hidden in a linen closet as the wicked scion of Jezebel and Ahab, Queen Athaliah, conspired to murder all the line of David (cf. 2 Kings 11).

Overtures 15 & 29: Strengthening Character Requirements for Ordination. The Assembly voted by a wide margin to amend BCO Chapter 16 to clarifying that officers, “…must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, and be committed to the pursuit of Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions” (Overture 29)… To amend BCO Chapter 7 to include the following language: “Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America” (Overture 15).

While not clearly a watershed the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), great strides were made to strengthen confessional integrity and biblical fidelity.
This year the Presbyterian Church in America met for her 49th General Assembly in Birmingham, Ala. Overall this Assembly was productive, and we accomplished many of the items on my “wishlist” for the PCA. Here are a few of the highlights.
I. Worship & Election of the Moderator
Each year the Assembly begins with a service of worship in which the retiring moderator (i.e., last year’s moderator) customarily preaches a sermon. This year TE Roy Taylor delivered his address based on Matt. 16:5-12, (“The Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”) in which he gave a lengthy history of the Pharisee and Sadducee movements. He warned against the extremes represented by each of those historic factions: we must neither withdraw from the culture nor acquiesce to the culture; we must neither subtract from the Word of God nor add to it. He urged the PCA not to become a rigid, ingrown, in-fighting, ineffectual denomination.
Following the close of the service, the Assembly reconvened for the purpose of electing a moderator. Two faithful men who were both excellent candidates were put forward: Ruling Elders John Bise from Huntsville, Ala., and Melton Duncan from Greenville, SC. Both nominating speeches were a blessing to hear and especially TE Reeder’s speech in which he gave a glorious, yet brief summary of God’s saving work in the gospel. John Bise was elected by the Assembly to be our moderator this year, and he navigated us through the business very well.
II. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
After vigorous debate, the Assembly voted by 60% to withdraw from the NAE. Some estimates suggest this will save the PCA in excess of $50,000 annually.
A. Arguments in Favor of Remaining in the NAE
The PCA was a long-time member of the NAE. Those arguing in favor of remaining insisted membership in the NAE gives us a national voice yet costs only as much as a part time assistant pastor, allows us to follow the biblical examples of Joseph and Esther who worked inside pagan governments, enables us to cooperate with other Christians, and allegedly gives the PCA credibility because the NAE logo is the “gold standard” among evangelical organizations.
B. Arguments in Favor of Withdrawing from the NAE
Those advocating departure had three main reasons. First, the PCA General Assembly is competent to speak for herself; she does not need a parachurch to do her bidding. Second, membership in the NAE is expensive and therefore not wise stewardship. Third, because the NAE presumes to speak for her member organizations, the PCA’s membership violates our convictions regarding Christian liberty by forcing PCA members, congregations, and presbyteries to be associated with the NAE and its pronouncements on gun control, abortion, sexuality, economics, etc.
III. Elections for Permanent Committees
This year’s Nominating Committee (NC) worked diligently to present a slate of men who would guide the PCA Agencies well for the next term (until 2026). The Assembly seemed to give its strong endorsement to the work of the NC this year as the vast majority of those put forward by the NC were elected.
One vote was especially close. In the election for Covenant College (CC) Board of Trustees, TE Omari Hill prevailed over TE W. Gregory Marshall by a mere four votes (717-713). It is also noteworthy that three of the men who sided with Missouri Presbytery (MOP) in “Speck 2” (i.e., MOP’s investigation of TE Greg Johnson) were not re-elected to the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).
IV. Committee on Constitutional Business (CCB)
The minutes (proceedings) of the SJC must be reviewed by the CCB each year to ensure the SJC proceedings are conducted properly. This year two of the eight elders on the committee asserted the SJC had violated its own operating procedures when it took the unprecedented step to re-open and add to the “record of the case” related to MOP’s investigation of TE Greg Johnson. Normally in such cases the SJC simply assesses the procedures and actions of a lower court.
These two elders attempted to submit a “minority report” to give the Assembly the opportunity to determine whether the actions of the SJC in this case were in error. The Moderator, however, ruled that unlike other committees of the General Assembly, a minority on the CCB has no right to submit a report for the Assembly’s consideration. The CCB apparently is the only committee in the PCA able to “deliberate upon and conclude the business” assigned to it.
The moderator’s ruling (sustained by a vote of 53-47%) was disappointing as I believe the SJC erred in the way it conducted that particular case.
V. Selected Overtures
A. Overture 8: Simplifying Oversight & Original Jurisdiction
There are currently two instances (summarized here) in which a group of presbyteries have requested the SJC take over a case from a lower court. The current language in the Book of Church Order (BCO) permits two or more presbyteries to request the SJC to assume original jurisdiction over a case if the lower court “refuses to act” (note: there is parallel language for cases involving Sessions within a Presbytery). But it is difficult to determine what “refuses to act” means. Does it mean “fails to investigate” or “fails to investigate thoroughly” or “fails to indict” or something different entirely?
The new language increases the number of courts (Presbyteries or Sessions) that must make a request for it to be valid, but gives less discretion to the higher court regarding whether to take the case: if the lower court has failed to bring charges in a matter of doctrine or public scandal and the required number of lower courts request it to do so, the higher court must take up the matter itself.
B. Overture 13: Calling Public Officials to Repent of Abortion
The Assembly directed the Stated Clerk to send a letter to our national leaders containing the following language:
…We who love our nation, in the name of God who  alone is sovereign, call upon you to renounce the sin of abortion, to repent of the complicity in the mass slaughter of innocent unborn children, who are persons in the sight of God, and to reverse the ruinous direction of both law and practice in this area…
This was adopted unanimously by our General Assembly one day before the SCOTUS decision overturning Roe v. Wade was announced. While we rejoice at the SCOTUS decision that will allow the several states to regulate the slaughter of unborn children, we must continue to pray for the complete abolition of “Abortion” in this Republic and throughout the world.
C. Overtures 15 & 29: Strengthening Character Requirements for Ordination
The Assembly voted by a wide margin to amend BCO Chapter 16 to clarifying that officers,
…must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, and be committed to the pursuit of Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions (Overture 29).
There were a few arguments against this language; they were largely centered on what was not being said rather than what was stated (e.g. no affirmation that God loves gay people).
By a much more narrow margin, the Assembly voted to amend BCO Chapter 7 to include the following language:
Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America (Overture 15).
There were a great many arguments against this language asserting it was too specific or that it was being inserted in the wrong place in our BCO.
I am grateful this language is here as it enables us to clarify our character requirements for ordained officers in a time of societal crisis on this matter. Because of confusion even in some church courts, I believe our BCO must instruct very clearly and with great specificity in this area to the courts conducting officer-candidate examinations.
The Church has been troubled by those who mistake and confuse celibacy versus chastity, worldliness versus winsomeness, and “take up your cross” versus “live your life.” So we must be clear we understand the standard of holiness the scripture teaches is manifested in those whom Christ calls to serve His bride.
Some of the arguments against the proposed language of Overture 15 asserted it would drive away those who struggle with unnatural affections. But we must remember this language defines officer qualifications and not membership requirements.
Read More
Related Posts:

It is a reminder to God’s people at the very start of the week – before they have accomplished a single thing that week – that in Christ, God’s disposition toward them is one of blessing, grace, peace, and love. God’s benediction (blessing) is not something we earn by performing satisfactorily or being good enough over the past week. God’s blessing is – like everything else in the gospel – a gift of His free grace to fill His empty people.

When I was younger and growing up in a Lutheran congregation, I knew the worship service was almost over when the congregation sang a scripture song (canticle) that began: “Thank the Lord and sing His praise…” following the communion.
On one occasion of singing this song, I remember leaning over to my dad and saying, “Yep, thank the Lord this is almost over!” He was less than pleased by my comment.
As a young child, I was excited about the end of the worship service because it meant an end to sitting still and the beginning of running around, being silly, and — of course — lunch!
But now as an adult and a minister in a Reformed Church, I still look forward to the end of the worship service and particularly the final element: the Benediction.
The Structure of Reformed Worship
There is a logic to a Reformed worship service. It begins with God calling the people to worship Him. We don’t come into God’s presence except by His command and invitation.
Following the “Call to Worship” are various elements that exalt God before us as we renew our covenant with Him and praise Him for who He is and what He has done for us.
The worship service ends with the “Benediction.”
The Blessing of God
The word benediction simply means good word; it is a blessing. Benedictions appear in most of the letters of the New Testament (the Epistle of James, notably, concludes without one).
Typically the benediction in a worship service is taken directly from a passage of Scripture.
Sometimes the object of blessing is God:
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 24–25)
But more often the object of blessing is the people of God:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor. 13:14)
Sometimes a benediction is a compilation of Biblical texts as in the case of this onecommonly used by Ligon Duncan:
Peace be to the brethren and love with faith, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ until the day breathes and the shadows flee away. Amen. (cf. Eph 6:23, Cant. 2:17)
Read More
Related Posts:

One former moderator of the General Assembly characterized this year as the “Pitchfork Assembly,” because of the outrage in the pews related to some of the events of recent years in the PCA. This is both cause for prayers of thanksgiving (i.e. that people in the churches are willing to sacrifice to send their elders to the Assembly and that God has raised up elders willing to do the work of the church) and prayers for peace (i.e. that God will pour out a spirit of humility and grace even as we contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints so we may be united in truth and love).

This document was prepared for the congregation of First Presbyterian Church in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.
As I prepare to attend the Assembly’s meeting in Birmingham this year, I want to apprise you of some of the matters that will be considered so you can be better prepared to pray for me and the other elders as we seek to do the work Christ has called us to do in this Assembly. From our congregation two of our elders have been elected to represent the Session.
If you’d like a quick review of the acts and deliverances of last year’s General Assembly as well as wider context, the preview and report from last year are on the church website: www.fpfo.org/gar.
I. The Year in Review
A lot has happened since last year’s PCA General Assembly in Saint Louis both in the life of the nation of our exile as well as within this small part of Christ’s Kingdom, the PCA. A few items will help set the context for this year’s Assembly and will loom large over it.
A. The Failure to Ratify Overtures 23 and 37
Overtures 23 and 37 were intended to provide further clarity on what it means for officers of the PCA to be above reproach. The amendments would have required Presbyteries and Sessions to examine officer candidates to prevent those who are harboring scandalous sins (e.g. racism, abuse, homosexuality) or maintaining an identity unbecoming of someone in union with Christ (e.g. “Gay Christian”) from being ordained in the PCA.
While a clear majority of the presbyteries voted to ratify the two overtures (63% for O23 and 55% for O37), they fell short of the 67% threshold required for ratification. I discuss more of what this means in this article and why we should be disappointed and concerned by the failure of ratification, but nonetheless I do not think it is reason to give up on the PCA.
B. The Apocalypse of the National Partnership
Last Fall someone released several files containing nine years’ worth of correspondence from a secretive society of elders (mostly teaching elders) within the PCA known as the National Partnership. The files reveal the goals of a more progressive wing of the Assembly and how they have attempted to dilute the PCA’s commitment to Presbyterian distinctives and pave the way for unordained people in leadership by allowing them on permanent committees currently limited only to elders and (in a few cases) deacons.
In November 2021 the Session produced a report examining the activity of the National Partnership; it is available here. If you’d like to read the correspondence that has been made public, you can do so here.
The files also revealed voting guides and attempts to ensure members of the National Partnership were elected to committees of Presbyteries and General Assembly. They also contained tips for newer elders and even a schedule to help their members know when to “SCHEDULE YOUR DRINKING” and when they needed to “be on the floor for those votes” during General Assembly.
The unveiling of these clandestine activities shocked and scandalized many within the denomination so much so that this year’s Assembly is anticipated to be the largest one yet as elders from small churches sacrifice to come out and contend for Christ’s bride against those who seek to weaken our commitment to the Standards.
C. The Denial and Sustaining of Complaints Against Missouri Presbytery (MoP)
As a result of public comments made by “gay pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America” TE Greg Johnson and the Session of Memorial Presbyterian Church (MPC) related to “Revoice 18,” a pair of complaints by TE Ryan Speck were filed against MoP for the way it handled the investigations of both TE Johnson and the Session of MPC. In the complaints, TE Speck argued MoP should have concluded there was a “strong presumption of guilt” regarding TE Johnson for his activities and that MoP should have concluded MPC erred seriously in hosting the Revoice conference.
The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) denied TE Speck’s complaint (Speck 2) regarding the way MoP investigated TE Johnson’s public statements. This led TE Johnson to claim he was exonerated by the ‘supreme court’ of the PCA. However, TE Johnson was never on trial; only the procedure observed by MoP was assessed by the SJC and only his statements prior to 2020. Additionally, SJC members noted the dangerous way in which TE Johnson has been speaking and writing since that time and strongly cautioned against his “tone-deafness.”
The SJC sustained crucial aspects of TE Speck’s complaint (Speck 1) related to MoP’s investigation of the MPC Session. This will require MoP to conduct a proper investigation regarding the activities of MPC. More on this matter below.
II. Domestic Abuse & Sexual Assault (DASA) Committee
After three years and approximately $30,000, the DASA committee produced a 220-page report aimed to help PCA session and presbyteries faithfully minister to those who are victims of various forms of abuse. Additionally the report offers advice regarding procedures to prevent abuse from taking place within the churches of the PCA.
There are numerous helpful pieces of advice within the report. TE George Sayour has written a helpful analysis, which I commend to you. The report should be received and the committee dismissed at this year’s Assembly.
III. Business of the 49th General Assembly
A. Nominations Committee (NC)
The NC is comprised of a representative from each of the 88 Presbyteries in the PCA. Each year the NC presents a report of recommended elders to staff the permanent committees overseeing the agencies of the PCA as well as the SJC. In addition to candidates from the NC, floor nominees are also permitted.
Read More
Related Posts:

Genuine Reformed catholicity…appreciates the wider tradition and heritage of Christian churches both past and present. It acknowledges both the areas in which Reformed Christians agree with various historic Christian traditions and areas in which the Reformed are distinct. True Reformed catholicity is committed to robustly expressing the beauty of Reformed worship, piety, and theology as well as winsomely engaging and working with those outside of Reformed churches.

Numerous elders have attempted to explain the current moment in our beloved PCA family. TE Derek Radney recently offered his own assessment attempting to explain the reason for the differences and tense discussions within the PCA of late.
His essay was published on the SemperRef collaborative.1 Radney identifies the trouble in the PCA not as one in which doctrine is disputed, but rather how the two sides “handle difference relationally.”
Radney winsomely counsels that both sides need to learn to
“stay connected to each other amidst our differences and to remain in the struggle with charity and humility that seeks to understand and learn before critiquing.”
Radney explains further, urging all sides in the PCA to ask:
“Do our words accurately represent the positions of our opponents? Do our words assign motives to our opponents?”
On the surface Radney presents a beautiful way forward for a less fractious Assembly and life together as the PCA.
But as one reads his essay, it becomes clear Radney not only has ignored his own counsel, but uses his counsel as a club to beat those with whom he disagrees in the PCA.
I. Identifying the Parties
Radney seems to identify the two major groups in the PCA as what he describes as the “Reformed Catholics” and the “Reformed Fundamentalists.” The group with whom he affiliates is the former. Everything wrong in the PCA apparently comes from the “Fundamentalist” portion of the PCA and everything good, beautiful, winsome, and hopeful seems to be expressed in the “Reformed Catholic” portion of the PCA.
Radney asserts:
“Reformed Fundamentalists hold Reformed distinctives in such a way that they cannot stand to stay connected to others relationally amidst disagreement of almost any kind. Rather than humble curiosity that slowly seeks to gain understanding about difference, distrust grows, motives are assigned to others, and many, if not all, disagreements are treated as matters of orthodoxy. This posture involves constant suspicion of outsiders and regularly seeks to purge insiders who appear to be compromisers.”
But he’s not finished describing his brothers in the PCA:
“The posture lacks generosity and charity through its inability to listen well such that others are really heard and understood. More basically, it lacks humility because this radical suspicion of others is absent in regard to one’s own motives or possible ignorance.”
In contrast to these “Reformed Fundamentalists,” are the “Reformed Catholics,” who are the only hope of a “beautiful future ahead” for the PCA. Radney characterizes “Reformed Catholicity” as
…a posture of curiosity, charity, critical appreciation, and cooperation grounded in and faithful to Reformed distinctives.
That’s quite a contrast. I certainly wouldn’t want to be one of those mean, ignorant, suspicious, proud, fearful “Fundamentalists.”
“Fundamentalist,” however, is an odd way to describe Reformed people given that “fundamentalism” in Christianity is more typically associated with folks who “don’t smoke, drink or chew, or run with girls who do.”….
….Radney acknowledges he’s not using the term “fundamentalism” in a “strict historical sense.” But on the other hand, Radney recently did assert he sees one of the major challenges of the PCA is how many are stuck in last century’s crisis (presumably the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy):
Recent cautions from Jon Payne about excessive alcohol consumption and his calls for pastoral piety when contrasted with the statements in the National Partnership documents cited above might, I suppose, lead the uninitiated to conclude one side of the PCA is a bunch of “Teetotaling Fundies” and the other takes care to “SCHEDULE YOUR DRINKING” during General Assembly. But that seems a bit of a stretch and not very nuanced.
II. Projection and the PCA
My seminary education at RTS Jackson didn’t have much training in psychology, but I can recognize psychological projection when I see it (I did, after all, watch a few Frasier episodes back in the day).
What is “psychological projection?” Britannica defines it as, “the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds.”
While Radney warns us all not to misrepresent the positions of our opponents and not assign motives to them, he does exactly that. First he describes his opponents with a pejorative “fundamentalist” label. But then he goes further.
He asserts his opponents are dominated by “relational anxiety,” grounded in “pride,” and motivated by a fear of “losing control” over the denomination. And – he asserts – that is the reason they are opposed to what he calls “the presence of difference.”
It’s hard to believe the author of those allegations is the one who also – in the very same article – cautions about assigning motives. Is it acceptable to assign motives if one does so in the spirit of “Reformed Catholicity?”
But Radney turns from psychoanalysis to spiritual analysis. Even going so far as to suggest those with whom he disagrees at best have no confidence in Jesus:
“If we have confidence in Jesus, the presence of difference will not throw us into combat mode (at least not right away), nor will it lead us to distance ourselves from other Christians over our differences in fear of a slippery slope.”
And at worst do not even know the gospel:
“Rather than being filled with pride and fear, the good news of Jesus can fill us with humility and hope. Because we are saved by grace alone, we have nothing to boast about and no ground to stand on to exalt ourselves above others.”
Shockingly it is Radney’s opponents whom he accuses of trying to exalt themselves above others. Even as he as the audacity to imply their lack of acquaintance with Christ is the reason for their “Fundamentalist posture.”
Read More
Related Posts: