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:

The ratification of the overtures would have been helpful and a key victory, but largely symbolic. In this sense the National Partnership was right: Overtures 23 and 37 are unnecessary (but they are neither unclear nor unloving). Everything required by these overtures is already set forth by the Westminster Standards. The problem has been an unwillingness in some presbyteries and agencies of the PCA to uphold the Standards or to interpret them according to their historic meaning.

Despite voices warning the PCA was slipping down a progressive slope, for the most part confessional churches (now referred to by the chic as “Neo-Fundamentalists”) and progressive congregations (are they the “Neo-Liberals” according to the new chic nomenclature?) got along well enough until recently.
While they had concerns regarding some currents in the PCA, many small-and-medium-sized confessional churches were content to leave the work of General Assembly largely to others. As a result, the PCA lurched slowly, yet steadily in a broad, progressive direction until about 2019.1
The 2019 and 2021 Assemblies represented a clear rejection of the broad, progressive, wing of the General Assembly. And elders at the Assembly took heed to the warnings about the slippery progressive slope.

Changing the PCA Trajectory 

The recent unveiling of a series of emails from the once-secretive National Partnership (NP) reveals the alarm of the Progressives regarding the new trajectory of the General Assembly beginning in 2019. A member in the NP sent this email as voting was about to begin in Dallas:
“The Overtures will be voted on in the assembly NOW. If by chance you are picking up SWAG in the assembly hall, smack yourselves and join us!”
After the votes were taken that same NP coordinator summarized his goals for the 2019 Assembly as follows:
Dear friends,The 47th GA is in the books. If you remember I listed three of my personal goals for this assembly:1. Reject Nashville statement and approve SSA study committee2. Approve the Abuse study committee3. Approve Overture 8 regarding the service of unordained people on committees
While the Study Committee on Abuse was approved after receiving widespread support in the Assembly, the Assembly rejected an attempt by the NP and its allies to dilute the PCA doctrine of ordination by permitting unordained people on the committees of the General Assembly.
Even more tellingly, the Assembly resoundingly approved the Nashville Statement (NS) as a faithful summary of biblical doctrine regarding gender and human sexuality. These were two significant defeats for the progressive agenda in the PCA. For more assessment of the NP agenda, read the Session report from First Presbyterian Church.
After the approval of the NS, one of its vocal opponents took to Twitter to prophesy the ultimate victory of a progressive vision for the PCA and a defeat for those in favor of the definitions in the NS:
“Last night the NS won the battle, but they will lose the war. 1. We had a seat at the table. That’s new. 2. Notice the average age of the proponents and opponents. Big shift. 3. About 40% of the PCA leaders rejected NS. WE got a study committee whose report will supersede NS in the PCA.”
While the author of this Tweet spoke out against approval of the Study Committee Report in 2021, the Study Committee was passed overwhelmingly by that Assembly and it seemingly does not undermine or contradict the Nashville Statement, but only strengthens it.
The 2021 GA in Saint Louis was an even more decisive defeat for the NP and the broad/progressive wing of the PCA. The PCA almost unanimously approved its solidly biblical and remarkably concise Study Report on Human Sexuality. The 2021 Assembly also delivered several other items long sought by confessional and conservative elders in the PCA:

The Assembly rejected a latitudinarian impulse on the Review of Presbytery Records Committee.
The Assembly prohibited Mission to the World from having unordained women and men in line authority supervising missionary pastors or ruling elders.
The Assembly overwhelmingly passed two overtures (23 and 37) that clearly bar anyone identifying as a Gay Christian or enslaved to other scandalous sins (e.g. racism, pornography, violence, etc.) from church office.
The Assembly largely rejected the (secret) NP slate of recommended candidates for the permanent committees, agencies, and Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA.2

An organizer in the NP graciously and realistically noted the goals of the NP and their progressive colleagues were clearly not accomplished at the 2021 Assembly and they would need to take stock of their “place” in the PCA:
“The side representing our views was significantly outnumbered. We will have to take that to heart and consider what it means for the next years. There will be conversations in the weeks and months ahead about how we best steward our place in this denomination. But for now I just wanted to thank you all for working together, and for stepping into the gap when it was needed on committee reports, microphones, bottles of bourbon and cigars.”

The Significance of the General Assembly

While many celebrated (or lamented) the passage of Overtures 23 and 37 (Item Three above), they are not the most significant result of the Saint Louis Assembly. Nor are they the only reason to be hopeful about a confessional renaissance in the PCA.
Item Four is the most significant because it is the permanent committees who oversee the daily operation of the PCA and recommend to the GA the hiring and firing of senior staff who set the agenda for the PCA. A few more Assemblies like Saint Louis (and to a large extent the 2019 Dallas Assembly as well) and the character of this denomination will reflect a clearer commitment to biblical fidelity and confessional integrity.
If conservative and confessional elders stay engaged and active at the General Assembly and presbytery level, we will be able to elect men to those committees and the SJC who will plot a course for the PCA within the Old Paths of the Reformed Faith, who will not prioritize “the culture’s view of the church over the church’s faithfulness to the unvarnished, countercultural, and often offensive proclamation of God’s truth,”3 and who will enable the courts of the PCA to uphold the Standards all her elders have subscribed.
That’s a big if; do confessional and conservative churches have the numbers to send elders to the General Assembly in 2022 to build on these successes from 2019 and 2021? I believe they do.
Read More

1 One notable exception to this is the Greensboro General Assembly in which the confessional wing of the PCA succeeded in having Northwest Georgia Presbytery cited with an exception of substance for including a purported image of the Second Person of the Trinity in their worship order in violation of WLC109. The reason for the confessional success later was revealed by documents containing the NP Correspondence: the members of the NP didn’t know this was happening and were “taken by surprise on the floor of the Assembly” (p. 255). I guess many of them didn’t read their Commissioner Handbooks to know they should be on the floor for this. This was the debate in which the Assembly was told pictures of “Jesus” should be allowed because “we all have pictures of Aslan in our office.”
2 “ALL_NPP_Emails…” pp. 431ff. While some NP recommended candidates were elected by the Assembly, the compositions of these committees and the SJC took a decidedly conservative and confessional turn after the 2021 GA.
3 TE Jon Payne, https://www.facebook.com/jon.d.payne.7/posts/1878803962320114.

If conservative and confessional congregations leave the PCA now, this beloved and faithful communion will indeed fall into the abyss of compromise, accommodation, and Postmodernism. Let us stay together and ensure the PCA enters her next half-century “faithful to the Scriptures, true to the Reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission.”

The PCA is at a crossroads; in many ways she is in a spiritual crisis, but I do not believe now is the time to depart the denomination (I explain more here). Instead, we must make a realistic assessment of our situation and stand firm to ensure the PCA enters her next half century as a Reformed and Confessional Protestant denomination for generations to come.
Standing firm in the PCA during this season of heavy debate will involve both difficulty and sacrifice; I give some advice for how to proceed during this season here.
We are currently debating what sort a denomination we will be. If conservative and confessional elders stay the course, participate in presbytery meetings and General Assembly, and prayerfully seek the Lord’s Spirit for blessing and reformation, I believe the PCA will be characterized by vibrant, warm confessional integrity and joyful, beautiful biblical fidelity for generations to come.
In the meantime, there will be calls for conservatives and confessional members and congregations to give up on the PCA and reaffiliate. But I think now is the worst time to do that.
V. Assessing Reasons for Departure
I am sympathetic to those who desire to leave the PCA, and I share many of their concerns. But here is a short summary of some common arguments for leaving followed by a short evaluation.
A. Peace
The argument goes something like this: “If we leave the PCA, we can align with churches and elders who have not been influenced by a Postmodern view of language, who share our commitment to the Westminster Standards, to Reformed piety, worship, and polity. This will free up resources currently devoted to battling over basic matters of what it is to be Presbyterian. This will be good for everyone’s blood pressure.”
This is attractive, but consider what the New Testament church was like. Also consider the reasons people left either the PCUSA in 1936 or the PCUS in 1973.1 Those with whom we disagree in the PCA still claim to affirm inerrancy and the PCA has not altered the Westminster Standards from their 1788 form.2
It is time to obey the command of Christ to contend for the faith and do the hard work of holding elders and churches to the Standards, not retreat because of a concern many do not sincerely embrace those Standards.
B. The Church Judiciary
1. The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC)
For many years there have been questions raised over the way the PCA’s SJC has functioned as the final court of appeal. People have argued the SJC focuses too much on procedure and not enough on substance to decide matters. As a result, it is claimed, the SJC has been unable or unwilling to hold men accountable for deviant theological views. The question has been raised whether the PCA is able to exercise church discipline. Others claim the progressives have managed to take control of the SJC.
The recent decision regarding Missouri Presbytery (MoP) has served to support these claims. Some, by the way, have referred to this as the “Johnson Decision;” such a designation is inaccurate and misleading. There was no one named Johnson who was a party to this case; it concerned a complaint against MoP by TE Speck. No one named Johnson was on trial nor was anyone named Johnson vindicated or exonerated by that recent decision.3
Nonetheless there were clear procedural anomalies in that SJC decision, which raise additional questions about the operation of the SJC.
But the decision to vindicate MoP, was not decided along progressive versus confessional lines. So don’t give up on the SJC;  even those SJC members who sided with MoP acknowledged “serious concerns” regarding TE Johnson, his lack of clarity, and even his “tone-deafness.”4 Far from exonerating TE Johnson, the SJC has signaled he must be far more circumspect and precise in the way he speaks and ministers.
Read More

We have seen over the last several years the results of a small, secretive, but well-organized group operating in the shadows. But imagine the benefit to the PCA if a large group of elders became engaged in the courts of the church and openly worked toward promoting faithfulness to the historic truths and the warm, biblical piety summarized in the Westminster Standards.

In my previous article, I explained why I am optimistic about the future faithfulness of the PCA as a confessionally Reformed denomination.
In short, I believe we are at a crossroads; our current heavy discussions, difficult interactions, and passionate debates reflect that many issues formerly hidden under the surface are now being addressed in the courts of the PCA.
While I believe it would be easier for confessional and/or conservative churches and members of the PCA to simply leave this denomination, I believe that is the wrong course of action at this time (as I explain in the previous article).
Now is not the time to leave, but it is the time to take firm and clear actions aimed at promoting biblical and confessional integrity within the PCA. If the activities or perceived agenda of PCA agencies trouble you, if the actions of a church court disturb you, there are ample remedies other than leaving the PCA.
Here are some recommendations for how to continue as a part of the PCA even if you have serious concerns about her trajectory, leadership, and/or institutions.
IV. Standing Firm
A. Funding
We are a “grassroots” denomination. In order for the agencies, committees, and missionaries of the PCA to function, they must be voluntarily supported by the congregations of the PCA. So if you have serious concerns, one remedy in the meantime is to carefully hold back funding.
Is it disingenuous to be part of the PCA without funding her committees and agencies? No; that is the way the system is designed and is another way of holding the committees and agencies accountable. As the saying goes: “get woke, go broke.”
This is not a long-term solution nor is it a policy to be lightly adopted. But rather than leaving the PCA, consider simply withholding financial support for a time.1
B. Generously Support Missionaries and Outreach
1. Targeted Support
Don’t just withhold funding; find missionaries whom you can support, who are part of the PCA, and who share the values or vision of your session.
For example, the small congregation I serve gives nearly $40,000 per year to individual missionaries and church plants.
Instead of supporting committees and agencies, we carefully select missionaries and ministries who share our vision for the church, who are likewise devoted to the Westminster Standards, who uphold the historic Christian position on sexuality, who are not “woke,” and who have not been captivated by a Post-Modernist understanding of language and truth.
Yes, it would be easier for us to simply write a check to the Presbytery or General Assembly MNA, MTW, and/or RUF Committees and hope for the best. But instead, we invest time and effort to cultivate relationships with missionaries whom we believe will expound the whole counsel of God in all its timeless truth.
2. Finding and Discerning Ministry Partners
This requires expending significant effort to get to know missionaries, but the efforts to build relationships are a blessing. I encourage other churches to do likewise rather than depart the PCA. But how can you get to know like-minded missionaries and outreach organizations? Here are some ideas:

The fact that we have reached a crossroads is a good thing. It indicates the divisions that mostly remained out of sight except occasionally (e.g. during the 2010 proposed “Strategic Plan” or sometimes during the Review of Presbytery Records Report) are now staying in the forefront of the discussion.

As we wait to see whether attempts to amend the Book of Church Order to explicitly prohibit the ordination of a “Gay Christian” will succeed, I remain optimistic about the PCA regardless of the outcome on this issue. I do not believe now is the time to consider leaving the PCA. Now is the time to make sure to be involved in the church courts especially the presbyteries.
The PCA is at a crossroads, which is a good thing; issues that have been under the surface are now coming to the forefront. We are deciding which way to go, and that takes time.
I. Historical Context for the PCA
A. Trajectory of the Presbyterian Church in America
The PCA was founded by churches leaving the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) because of the stranglehold of Liberalism within that denomination. That Liberalism was rooted in the PCUS seminaries, which stunted the Reformed witness of even the best churches in the PCUS.
While the PCA has always been a confessionally Reformed communion, in the last generation she has experienced a renaissance of Reformed faith, piety, and worship thanks in no small measure to the founding of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) in Jackson.
I witnessed on a small scale the fruit of the patient efforts of RTS Jackson in transforming the churches of Mississippi into vibrant, warm centers of Reformed faith, piety, and worship.
Since that time more seminaries have come to serve the PCA such as “the Westminsters” and Greenville. Faithful professors there have built on the foundation laid at RTS Jackson to educate men in the heritage of the Puritans and Old School Presbyterians.1
Those old paths—so neglected even by the best churches and seminaries of the PCUS during the 20th Century—are celebrated by the institutions training ministers for the service of Christ and His Church in the PCA. And God’s Spirit is doing a mighty work throughout the PCA.
There is a growing number of churches of the PCA that are distinctively devoted to the Reformed Faith as summarized by the Westminster Standards. Over the last 50 years, the churches of the PCA have become more obviously Reformed in character than they were in 1973.
The trajectory of the denomination is not one that is trending toward Liberalism or even progressivism. To consider leaving now, risks discarding the slow and winsome work of a generation that is long been flowering in the churches, which is now bearing abundant fruit throughout the PCA.
Let us be patient and active in the PCA. By the blessing of the Spirit, the ongoing work of faithful Reformed seminaries, and the slow, quiet work of countless elders in many congregations, the future is bright for those in the PCA committed to the historic Reformed Faith.
B. Study the Lutherans
Too many presume an inevitable confessional or conservative retreat to form a new denomination because of what happened with the OPC in 1936 or the PCA in 1973. But that neglects truth’s victories over error in recent decades (and misdiagnoses the PCA’s condition).
There are recent instances of beating back liberalizing (or Barthian) trends in other denominations (e.g. the in ARP). The best example of this is probably the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and Seminex.2 Like the PCA, the LCMS is a confessional, Protestant denomination that was battling worldly influences.
The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy simmered longer for the Lutherans than it did for the Presbyterians, but by the 1960s it came to a head. The denomination suspended the liberal president of their flagship seminary, Concordia Seminary Saint Louis, which prompted a walkout by the liberal faculty and students in 1974.
The denomination held its ground against the vocal complaints of aggrieved liberals. But the liberals left for good; several hundred congregations left the LCMS and the liberals faculty founded a new (but quickly defunct) seminary called Seminex.
Because the Lutherans stood their ground, the vast majority of the congregations stayed loyal to the denomination and the LCMS continues as a faithful, confessional, Protestant denomination with nearly two million members today.
While there are no Theological Liberals in the PCA, TE Harry Reeder has ably shown the progressivism plaguing the PCA is “cut from the same bolt of cloth.”3 I believe the LCMS experience with Seminex is instructive for the PCA. Rather than leave the PCA, we can and should hold our ground and hold progressives accountable to our confessional standards (the ones they too profess to embrace).