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).