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.

Loraine Boettner was following in his tradition when, in the early 1900s, he created his own diatessaron for classroom use at Pikeville College, Kentucky, where he was a professor. This book used the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), which Boettner preferred over the King James, and was published by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing as A Harmony of the Gospels.

The Gospel of Jesus: The Four Gospels in a Single Complete Narrative by Loraine Boettner.
Editor’s Note
In the mid-100s, Tatian the Syrian arranged the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single narrative and called it the Diatessaron, a Greek term meaning “Out of Four.” His innovation proved inspiring to others through the centuries. Reformed theologian and author Loraine Boettner was following in his tradition when, in the early 1900s, he created his own diatessaron for classroom use at Pikeville College, Kentucky, where he was a professor. This book used the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), which Boettner preferred over the King James, and was published by Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing as A Harmony of the Gospels.
This new edition of Boettner’s diatessaron differs in several ways from the original, yet the bones are the same. Although the ASV has much to commend it, we have used the Christian Standard Bible for its clear, familiar vocabulary and ease of reading. We have updated, revised, and added to Boettner’s headings and adjusted dates he provided to better reflect contemporary scholarly consensus.1
In formatting the new edition, we have walked a careful line between providing as much information as possible and promoting a user-friendly reading experience. Full Scripture references for all the New Testament texts are given in the margins, where the eye can easily find or look past them as desired. In cases where more than one gospel writer recorded the same event or teaching, we have printed the account that gives it most fully and have inserted additional distinct material from parallel gospel accounts in [brackets] at the appropriate places; some punctuation and paragraph breaks have also been inserted as clarity required. Bolded text indicates a quotation from, or reference to, an Old Testament passage, and an index on page 213 provides further details. Italicized text indicates a non-English word or, when applied to English text, an editorial insertion or substitution. Scripture references are marked with asterisks (*) when they are for passages that do not appear in all the earliest manuscripts of Scripture. (Not all these passages are included in this book.) The abbreviations found in the margins signify the following New Testament books:
Mt        MatthewMk       MarkLk        LukeJn        John1 Cor   1 Corinthians
This book is no substitute for a Bible. It is no substitute for reading the gospels individually: each gospel is inspired and offers a distinct perspective on Christ. And yet we hope you will find The Gospel of Jesus to be a helpful resource for Bible study. This harmony is not intended to flatten out the distinctive voices of the gospel writers but to direct you back to their individual gospels with fresh understanding and appreciation.
Amanda MartinEditorial DirectorP&R Publishing2023

For the timeline that guided our adjustments, see CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 1494–95, 1662–63.

Here is an example of the Temptation narrative:
WILDERNESS OF JUDEA
The Temptation
Lk 4:1-2          Then Jesus left the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit, and was led by the Spirit in
     the wilderness for forty days to be tempted by the devil.
Mk 1:13           He was with the wild animals.
Mt 4:2-11        After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. Then the
    tempter approached him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these
    stones to become bread.”
    He answered, “It is written: “Man must not live on bread alone but on every
    word that comes from the mouth of God.”
Lk 4:9              Then the devil took him to the holy city [Jerusalem], had him stand on the
      pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw
      yourself down. For it is written:
Lk 4:10            “He will give his angels orders concerning you, [to protect you,]
    and they will support you with their hand so that you will not strike your foot
    against a stone.”
    Jesus told him, “It is also written: ”Do not test the Lord your God.”
Lk 4:5              Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the
     kingdoms of the world [in a moment of time] and their splendor.
    And he said to him, “I will give you all these
Lk 4:6-7          things if you will fall down and worship me [because it has been given
    over to me, and I can give it to anyone I want. If you, then, will worship me, all
    will be yours].”
    Then Jesus told him, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: Worship the Lord your
    God, and serve only him.”
Lk 4:13            Then the devil left him [for a time], and angels came and began to serve him.

Related Posts:

Within the economic Trinity there is a Divine Person with a non-divine will that makes Jesus’ submission to God both possible and fitting. Accordingly, the Christ to God authority and submission is not a Trinity consideration per se but a limited consideration of the union of two natures in one hypostasis. Yet the submission of wife to husband finds its analogy to Christ to God not in an ordering of being but in creative design just the same.

A pair of books were recently released entitled: Let The Men Be Men & Let The Women Be Women. As the subtitles disclose, the respective books pertain to God’s Design For Manhood And Marriage & God’s Design For Womanhood and Marriage.
This is not a review of the books but instead I offer a brief analysis on the theological appropriateness of using unqualified persons of the Trinity as an analogy for marriage.
My wife was reading to me a portion from Chapter 2 of one of the books, wherein a passing reference to the Trinity was made. The author said he’d develop the reference more in Chapter 10. Naturally, I took a quick peak at chapter 10 because some otherwise good material on wives and husbands has been disregarded over the years due to missteps having to do with Trinity analogies. One particular egalitarian Anglican-theologian who’s well versed in Trinitarian theology has capitalized on such missteps. Others have as well. Neither Baptists nor Presbyterians should want to throw the baby out with the bath water (pun intended).
In the hope that such books are a success in bringing clarity to the complementarian discussion, I thought I’d make a few comments on some direct quotes from the book on women.
My thoughts as they relate to the doctrine of God, I think, would be shared by most Reformed theologians and pastors. We might recall that they are the ones (along with an Anglican or two) who went after Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, and others for their Trinity analogies to marriage in the summer of 2016. What I have, also, found unfortunate is that some biblical teaching on marriage has been dismissed, if not even scorned in the process, due to mistaken Theology Proper.
More than in Reformed Baptist circles, there are thin complementarians in the Reformed Presbyterian community. Many of these men have their Trinitarian theology down pat. So, any Trinity misstep by otherwise good men of God provides occasion for some to dismiss biblical complementarianism. This is understandable, which should cause certain Reformed Baptists to be more careful, if not solely for the sake of putting forth a biblical view of God, and secondly so that others might give attention to sound marriage doctrine.
From chapter 10:
The Trinity As A Model Of Submission

“The Trinity” is a term that defines the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – one essence and attributes, yet three in distinct work and purpose. (Emphasis mine)

We don’t want to eclipse Divine Simplicity and the inseparable operations of the Trinity. (We might recall, that was a big deal in the Trinity debate in the summer of 2016.)
Each divine Person is operative in all God’s works. Which is to say, the works of the Trinity are indivisible. Indeed, it was the Son who died on the cross, but God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (by the Spirit). In redemption there is one distinct work and purpose, carried out through the inseparable operations of Persons when Christ, by the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without blemish to God.
Trinity is not a term that seeks to define God by “relationship” within the Godhead, if by relationship we mean personal distinctions of authority and submission. The historical Christian creeds discriminate not by eternal relationships (or economic functions) but by personal properties. Accordingly, any orthodox reference to “relationship” must be interpreted as personal properties ad intra that cash out as eternal modes of being. Any eternal relationship may only be conceived of in terms of relations of eternal origin, not subject to temporal-sequence or personal roles. Historically, the church has defined Trinity in terms of the eternal origins of existence: unbegogtenness of the Father; eternal generation of the Son; and procession of the Holy Spirit.
Paul is not making a theological statement about the Trinity but rather making application about Christ, a divine human being, submitting to his Father. In other words, the focus isn’t on the economic Trinity per se but more narrowly on economic relations of the incarnate Son as he submits as the God-man in his humanity to God, who is Christ’s head. (Matthew 27:46; John 20:17; Revelation 3:2,12) Paul’s focus is on congruous order, not Theology Proper.
Not to parse things too fine, but some have pressed the analogy too far. There is an ordering that is natural and fitting – the woman to her husband; the husband, as head, to Christ; and Christ to God.
Read More
Related Posts: