There are indeed many reasons to continue to be hopeful, optimistic, and engaged in the work of the PCA courts. The PCA continues to move slowly but steadily in a direction that reflects greater faithfulness and integrity regarding our confessional commitments and Reformed distinctives. 

The PCA turns a half century this year, and the 50th General Assembly meets in Memphis, Tenn. June 12-16. Numerous elders (e.g. TEs Jon Payne and the late Harry Reeder) have noted the fifty-year mark is a crucial milestone for faithfulness as a Church. Fittingly, the PCA has been engaged in a lengthy family discussion over the last few years over what sort of communion we will be.
Will the PCA be a “big tent” with wide latitude regarding what it means to be “Reformed” and “Presbyterian” (as in David Cassidy’s blog here) or will she be a house, with well-defined, clearly demarcated boundaries of what is in and out, as RE Brad Isbell articulates in his helpful overview?
The Scripture uses both analogies to describe the Church:
Enlarge the place of your tent, and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out; do not hold back; lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes. For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your offspring will possess the nations and will people the desolate cities.(Isaiah 54:2–3)
That sounds like the design of the Church is to be a “big tent,” although perhaps without the clowns who normally populate such. But then again, in the New Covenant, we are exhorted not to long for a big tent:
We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.(Hebrews 13:10)
and
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.(1 Peter 2:4–5)
The PCA is nonetheless trending in the direction not of a “big tent,” but of a distinctively Reformed communion committed to the historic expression of Presbyterianism articulated in the Westminster Standards. In an interview with TE George Sayour, the legendary churchman TE O. Palmer Robertson reflected on this trajectory during his time in the PCA since 1973 and how the PCA has steadily moved in a more solidly Reformed direction.
1. The State of the PCA
The founding generation of the PCA envisioned her being a confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian faith communion:
…committed without reservation to the Reformed Faith as set forth in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. It is our conviction that the Reformed faith is not sectarian, but an authentic and valid expression of Biblical Christianity…We particularly wish to labor with other Christians committed to this theology.1
Over the last half-century, the PCA has indeed moved decidedly in that direction in terms of worship, polity, and piety. The founding generation of the PCA, largely educated in the institutions of the old PCUS, may not have had a rich theologically Reformed foundation, but it is clear they desired the new denomination to develop in that area and to raise up ministers who had such a foundation and could impart such commitments in the new denomination. Institutions such as Reformed Theological Seminary and fathers such as TE Morton Smith would instill in the first generation of men ordained in the PCA a love for the Reformed Faith and a desire for the nations to come to Christ to worship Him in Spirit and Truth.
This progress has been slow and not without regression or exception. But the PCA is becoming more distinctively Reformed with each passing decade.
A. Review of 2022 Overtures
TE Scott Edburg along with RE Joshua Torrey have maintained a helpful spreadsheet tracking each of the 49th General Assembly’s overtures. What follows is a brief overview of some of the most significant results of the last year.
The Character Overtures (Overtures 15, 29 & 31)
To the 50th General Assembly will come a number of overtures approved by the presbyteries for final ratification. While the presbyteries approved Overtures 29 and 31, which both serve to strengthen character requirements for ordination, the presbyteries failed to approve Overture 15, which would have added this clear and concise statement to the Book of Church Order:
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.
While this amendment passed nearly 60% of PCA presbyteries, it failed to reach the necessary 2/3 majority to enable final ratification by the 50th Assembly. Even if Overtures 29 and 31 are ratified by this Assembly, there will still be no clear standard barring men dominated by unnatural lusts from ordination. A few “do-overtures” will be considered by the 2023 General Assembly in an attempt to spare the PCA further discord resulting from the new ideas brought in by some in Saint Louis and elsewhere who dwell in the bulwarks of nuance and ambiguity.
The Jurisdiction Overture (Overture 8)
A valiant effort was made last year by Houston Metro Presbytery to codify how scandal in one presbytery or congregation may be addressed by the wider Church. Currently the language of the constitution is vague regarding how a higher court may intervene in a scandal within a lower court, which has allowed a number of men to avoid judicial scrutiny of views and practices that are clearly deviant.
Critics of the overture at last year’s Assembly expressed concern that such a change to clarify the PCA Constitution would enable “witch hunts.”
Except for Overtures 8 and 15, all others sent to the presbyteries for approval received overwhelming support and will likely be ratified by the Assembly in Memphis.
B. Signs of and Challenges to Confessional Health in the PCA
There are numerous reasons to be optimistic regarding the trajectory and continued fidelity of the PCA. Since 2019, the Assembly’s acts and deliverances have generally tended to strengthen our commitment to historic Christianity and distinctively Reformed Presbyterianism. But congregations must continue to send their full complements to General Assembly in order to participate in the work of the Church and contend for the faith against those who would broaden or weaken our constitutional commitments.
Good Faith or System Subscription?
Long ago, the PCA wisely determined she would not require full subscription to every proposition of the Westminster Standards by her officers. Instead the PCA enshrined in her constitution what has come to be called “Good Faith Subscription” (GFS). In GFS, all a candidate’s differences must be submitted to the Church court for assessment and it is expected – in good faith – that the man has no other differences with the system of doctrine other than those few that he has articulated. The Presbytery then must determine whether those differences are acceptable and whether/how they impact the rest of the system.
GFS is not loose subscription or “System Subscription” in which a wide variety of differences may be held, practiced, and taught. In GFS, a man’s stated differences are presumed not to impact the rest of the system and that he is in agreement with everything else within the Standards except where has he has narrowly stated a difference. GFS is one of the more strict forms of confessional subscription.
In “System Subscription,” a man simply states his agreement with the system, but in there is no necessary check or examination to ensure the system the man claims to hold actually conforms to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards. It is important to remember, the Westminster Standards are themselves a system and to disagree with or reject one portion often results in a series of other disagreements, since much of the Westminster Standards are interdependent.2
Recently there seems to be a blurring of the distinctions between GFS and System Subscription by some within the PCA, but the two are not the same. In his farewell / sabbatical blog, SemperRef editor TE Travis Scott inaccurately equated System Subscription with the Good Faith Subscription required by the PCA’s constitution:
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Jon D. Payne |
Friday, February 25, 2022
The problem lies in the fact that a significant percentage of the PCA has moved from broad expressions of worship, ministry, and mission to progressive ones. Yes, that’s the main problem. Many of our churches, presbyteries, and agencies have shifted from broad to progressive, not unlike the wider evangelical world. Ten years ago Side B Gay Christianity and social justice were not noteworthy movements with influential voices in the PCA. Today they are. Ten years ago we didn’t have a self-identified gay pastor making national headlines in USA Today, Christianity Today, and Yahoo! News.[2] Today we do.

The Book of Church Order (BCO) amendments that many hoped would guard the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) from further infiltration of Revoice/Side B Gay doctrine were officially defeated. Yes, in case you haven’t heard, the amendments are now dead in the water. They will not be voted upon in the 49th PCA General Assembly in June. The road to reform has narrowed.
Reflections After Defeat
I believe that there are several reasons why a good number of PCA elders and congregants are discouraged by the failure of Overtures 23 and 37, and do not dismiss the defeats as a small bump in the road to reform. First, the failure of the overtures reveals that a significant number of ordained elders in the PCA are either in support of, comfortable with, or indifferent to having self-identified gay celibate pastors in the denomination. Can this point really be disputed anymore? The numerous personal interactions that I’ve had with PCA elders and denominational leaders since the inauguration of Revoice only underscore this point in my own mind. There is a subtle normalization and quiet acceptance of Side B Gay Christianity taking place in the PCA right now. The line has moved.
Second, the failure of the overtures shows that many elders who opposed them for technical (language) reasons do not regard Side B Gay Christianity as an imminent threat to the biblical fidelity and confessional integrity of the PCA. If they did, they would have voted on principle for these crucial, though imperfect, amendments — amendments that would’ve provided clear constitutional guidance to our presbyteries regarding pastors and ordinands who profess a settled gay identity. To argue that Overtures 23 and 37 are unnecessary or imperfectly worded, and thus rightly defeated, is to raise doubt that any amendments on the matter of self-identified gay pastors will ever be satisfactory enough to be approved by two-thirds of our presbyteries.
Third, the failed overtures communicate the same truth as the unanimously approved PCA Study Report on Human Sexuality. If this is the case, then why did the overtures fail to reach the necessary two-thirds presbytery threshold? Could it be that a large number of presbyters are agreeable to the PCA possessing a non-binding study report, but not to the application of the report to our constitution and church courts? It’s a fair question that I’ve heard asked more than once.
Fourth, the failed amendments demonstrate that they can be passed by overwhelming margins at the General Assembly, and yet be soundly defeated in the presbyteries.[1] For those laboring for denominational reform, this is a difficult pill to swallow.
Broad to Progressive?
Since its founding in 1973, the PCA has had a wide variety of churches. Diverse and sundry expressions of worship, piety, mission, and practice have always existed within our ranks. There have been more broad and evangelical approaches to ministry, along with more narrow and distinctively Reformed approaches. Some might refer to themselves as “Evangelical and Reformed” while others might be more comfortable describing themselves as “Reformed and Evangelical” or simply “Reformed and Confessional.” The nature of the PCA’s “broadness” — too broad for some and not broad enough for others — has, over the years, caused men on both ends of the spectrum to depart the PCA for what they believe are greener pastures. However, for the most part, men with different perspectives on ministry and mission have been able to labor together with relative peace and unity for almost five decades. Personally, I’ve deeply appreciated aspects of this broadness, and have learned from varying perspectives in ministry and mission that have differed from my own.
So what has changed? Why the dust-up? Haven’t we (the PCA) always been a big tent? Haven’t we always been broad? Why can’t we just all get along and continue to embrace our diversity of approaches? These are questions being raised by some presbyters. Perhaps you’ve wondered the same.
The problem lies in the fact that a significant percentage of the PCA has moved from broad expressions of worship, ministry, and mission to progressive ones. Yes, that’s the main problem. Many of our churches, presbyteries, and agencies have shifted from broad to progressive, not unlike the wider evangelical world. Ten years ago Side B Gay Christianity and social justice were not noteworthy movements with influential voices in the PCA. Today they are. Ten years ago we didn’t have a self-identified gay pastor making national headlines in USA Today, Christianity Today, and Yahoo! News.[2] Today we do. Ten years ago we didn’t have Revoice.[3] Today we do. Ten years ago we didn’t have TE’s promoting cultural expressions of social justice to their congregations. Today we do. The PCA’s broadness has turned progressive.
Those who oppose self-professed gay ministers, Revoice, and social justice in the PCA are criticized by some as working to make the PCA more narrow than it has ever been. They argue that we are trying to make the Big Tent smaller. But that’s simply not true. Our convictions on union with Christ, regeneration, definitive and progressive sanctification, sin, concupiscence, biblical justice, and sexual ethics haven’t changed. We are happy to live in a broad tent, with diverse approaches to Reformed ministry, just not a progressive one.
Still Time to Hope
My candid assessment of where things stand in the wake of the failed overtures will naturally seem gloomy. Is there still time to hope for reform and positive change in the PCA? Yes, I believe that we still have time to hope, but that hope must fuel action.
Read More

[1] My post 2021 General Assembly GRN article “The PCA’s Bright Future— Without a Bigger Tent” demonstrates my initial hope and expectation that things were looking brighter for the PCA. I did not believe that the overtures would be soundly defeated in the presbyteries.   https://gospelreformation.net/the-pcas-bright-future-without-a-bigger-tent/
[2] See Greg Johnson, “I’m a Gay Celibate Pastor in a Conservative Church”, USA Today and Yahoo News, December 22, 2021 https://news.yahoo.com/im-gay-celibate-pastor-conservative-120126716.html?guccounter=1 ; Johnson, “I Used to Hide My Shame. Now I Take Shelter Under the Gospel”, Christianity Today, May 20,2019.  https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/may-web-only/greg-johnson-hide-shame-shelter-gospel-gay-teenager.html
[3] While Revoice is not a ministry of the PCA, it has had a significant influence on many of our churches. A better choice for those struggling with disordered sexuality is Harvest USA. https://harvestusa.org/

We must maintain that we who repent and believe stand in robes of righteousness as beloved sons and daughters of God, even as we do daily battle with any and all sexual lust and unbiblical desire that claims our affections.  We are not our sin, and we ought never to let it define us.

Gay Christianity was born out of desperation. People like me—people who have had in the past or who currently have deep, abiding and/or long-lasting sexual desires for members of our own gender—had found no place in the broad evangelical church. Instead, these churches typically say homosexuality is a behavior to be modified through parachurch ex-gay ministries. The church condemned such feelings as bad choices and condemned the people (like me) who experienced these feelings as abominations, falsely calling homosexual desires a willful choice.
I have never met a person who has chosen same-sex attraction. In the early 2000s, people with abiding and lasting same-sex attraction gathered together under the umbrella term gay Christian. They are supported by the Gay Christian Network, or Side A (which sanctions same-sex marriage and believes that homosexuality is just one of many forms of diverse sexuality that the church should welcome), and the Spiritual Friendship internet community, or Side B (which believes that homosexuality is not a morally culpable issue, although it is a consequence of the brokenness from the Fall; Side B teaches against homosexual sexual practice, but only for the sake of Christian tradition). While Side B seeks to uphold biblical sexual standards, because it sees sexual orientation as an accurate category of personhood (i.e., there is such a thing as a gay person—that gayness describes who someone essentially is), their theology in no way allows for an understanding of why homosexuality, even at the level of desire, is sinful and needing the grace of repentance. To the Side B Christian, homosexuality is a sexuality—one of many.
Over the years, we have seen many Side B Christians defect for Side A, declaring that God sanctions gay unions. And I predict that we will see many more defectors, since the theology behind Side B is biblically untenable. How can any of us fight a sin that we don’t hate? Hating our own sin is a key component to doing battle with it. At the same time, we need to separate ourselves from the sin we hate.  This can be a very challenging issue for a Christian who experiences SSA, an issue that becomes exceedingly more challenging if one assumes the social identity of “gay Christian.”
We must maintain that we who repent and believe stand in robes of righteousness as beloved sons and daughters of God, even as we do daily battle with any and all sexual lust and unbiblical desire that claims our affections.  We are not our sin, and we ought never to let it define us.
Side A and Side B both support the idea that sexual orientation is an accurate category of personhood, and therefore they both are outside the bounds of biblical teaching.
Source