There is no need to despair because of what the General Assembly did not do this year or because of a few hostile and misleading headlines. Instead, those who genuinely and passionately care about preventing abuse, ministering to abuse survivors, and calling abusers to repentance (remember that is the purpose of the Church Court), should study our Constitution and seek ways to make the Church Courts more effective at fulfilling the roles given to them by her King.

Amending the Constitution of the PCA is a difficult task by design; it takes the approval of two General Assemblies and the consent of two-thirds of the Presbyteries. It is not something that can be done lightly or speedily. Many on the conservative and/or confessional side of the PCA were frustrated by the pace at which the PCA amended her Book of Church Order (BCO) to fortify the Church against the Saint Louis Theology/Revoice.
TE Charles Scott Williams first raised the alarm regarding the deviations emanating from Nashville and Saint Louis in 2016. Now, seven years later, the PCA seems to have reached a consensus on what our Constitution needs in order to close the door to “Side-B” and Revoice. But it will not be until 2024 until the most recent of those amendments can go into effect.
Likewise this year, many were disappointed when the General Assembly rejected proposed amendments to her Constitution that purported to help the PCA respond more effectively to allegations of abuse.
I. On the “Tragic” Assembly
Some have decried the actions of the Assembly in rejecting these proposals. If you read the news or follow social media, you might presume the PCA is rife with all manner of abusers.

In an article published in Christianity Today, Covenant College alumna Emily Belz decrees: “The Presbyterian Church in America Has an Abuse Crisis Too.” In which she cites self-styled, but unnamed, “advocates” who assert the PCA typically handles things badly.
The Baptist News Global announces: “Conservative Presbyterians reject four proposals to curb sexual abuse. But we must question: what would these four ‘rejected’ proposals have done to ‘curb’ sexual abuse?
The Tennessean claims the PCA limits who can be called pastor, elder, and deacon while at the same time rejecting “abuse measures.” But did the PCA actually reject abuse measures? And would these measures actually do what they claimed?

These are the sort of headlines about which TE Tim LeCroy warned us. They seem to imply the PCA is negligent regarding abuse. But is there proof for the headlines?
II. On Not Being Reactionary
If you believe the (social) media hype, the PCA is a communion that cares more about ensuring women are not addressed as pastor or deacon than about protecting women and other vulnerable people from abuse. TE Charles Stover has already written thoughtfully on this matter and exhorted us to remain calm.
Rather than react hastily to media headlines, the Church ought to remedy well rather than speedily any defects in her Constitution.
The Church must not yield to reactionary rhetoric and manipulative reporting. This is not to say reforms are not needed or would not be helpful. But neither ought we assume there is a crisis simply because some people loudly assert there is one.
As saints and as elders in the Kingdom of God, we must not submit to the tyranny of headlines and Tweets, but instead take stock of what is true, where we are, and what our duty is.
A. What Is True?
Does the PCA care more about who can use the titles of ordained office than protecting people from abuse? Well, maybe. But is that wrong? Isn’t usurping a church office a form of abuse? Isn’t gaslighting someone into thinking she’s a deacon – when our Book of Church Order clearly declares she cannot be a deacon – a form of abuse? Perhaps abuse is not even properly understood.
But I will not grant the premise: it is not the case that the PCA cares more about regulating the use of officer titles than protecting the abused. People in various media have asserted this, but they have not proven this point.
B. Where Are We?
The PCA did not simply reject four overtures aimed to protect victims from abuse.
It referred back the proposal related to background checks for further perfection. In doing this, the Assembly recognized merit in the proposal, but also that the overture was not yet ready – as currently written and amended by the Overtures Committee – to be implemented by the Assembly. Amending the PCA Constitution does not work on the schedule of the news cycle, so the Church must not react to headlines.
Indeed, the Assembly rejected an entirely novel proposal to permit atheists (i.e., fools; cf. Psalm 14:1) to give testimony in the courts of the Church. To add this provision to our Constitution would undermine the teaching of our Confession of Faith on Oaths and Vows:
The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred (WCF 22:2).
How can the members of a Church Court in good conscience administer an oath to an atheist, given what the PCA confesses regarding oaths and vows?
Yes, the Assembly also rejected Overture 14, which aimed to restrict Christian lawyers from participation in the Courts of the Church. Why did the Assembly do this? Because the proposal demonstrated partiality and was entirely “without Biblical authority.” Can you think of a better, more honorable reason to reject a proposal?
However, the narrative peddled by the media is completely undermined by the Assembly’s ratification of a very important change to our constitution, which does more to protect alleged victims of abuse than any of the failed overtures sought to do: the Assembly adopted Item 8.
Read More
Related Posts:

To date (January 25, 2023), 51 presbyteries have voted on Overture 15, with 30 voting to pass and 21 voting not to pass, under the two-thirds threshold to bring the amendment to the floor of the 50th General Assembly. Overture 15 has passed in 81 percent of the presbyteries without a dissenting commissioner (17-4), while it has only passed in 47 percent of the presbyteries with a dissenting commissioner (14-16).
 
Recording a dissent is an important feature of presbyterian polity. It allows officers to disagree respectfully with their fellow elders, expresses solemn opposition to a position held by a majority, and provides transparency and accountability in public record. While I’ve voiced my own approval of Overture 15, nonetheless I am grateful for the men who had the conviction to record their dissent, as well as for the process that allowed them to do so.
Although members of a court agree to submit to the outcome of a vote, the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order allows for members of a court to record a dissent or protest (BCO 45-1). A dissent is “a declaration on the part of one or more members of a minority, expressing a different opinion from the majority in its action on any issue before the court, and may be accompanied with the reasons on which it is founded” (BCO 45-2).
Recorded in the minutes of the 49th General Assembly are the names of the commissioners who recorded their dissent from the majority that passed Overture 15 (see pp. 80-85 in the GA minutes).
Although the reasons for a dissent may be recorded to accompany the names of those dissenting (BCO 45-2), so long as it is “couched in temperate language” (BCO 45-5), no reasons accompany the names of those dissenting in the minutes. Since that time, various individuals have published their opinions and reasons for dissenting in writing.
Who are the dissenters?
Altogether, 199 commissioners representing 58 presbyteries recorded their dissenting vote. Ruling elders (44, 22%) were disproportionately underrepresented among dissenters relative to their presence in the court (663, 31%), while teaching elders (155, 78%) were disproportionately overrepresented by the same comparison (1499, 69%).

The data seem to suggest that REs are more likely than TEs to support the passage of Overture 15, though of course more research would be needed to confirm such a hypothesis. Given this pattern, it is also interesting to note the presbyteries where the number of REs dissenting exceeded the number of TEs dissenting (Evangel, Southern New England, Southern Louisiana, and Philadelphia, each with one more RE than TE dissenting).
Which presbyteries did dissenters represent?
Nashville presbytery had the greatest number of dissenters with 19 (7 REs, 12 TEs). Evangel (6 REs, 5 TEs) and Metropolitan New York (1 RE, 10 TEs) each had 11 dissenters, Missouri presbytery (3 REs, 7 TEs) had 10, and Northern California (1 RE, 7 TEs) had eight. Five other presbyteries had six dissenters each. Another 48 presbyteries had five or fewer, including 20 each with one dissenter.

Thirty presbyteries did not have a single commissioner recording a dissenting vote. They are: Arizona, Ascension, Canada West, Columbus Metro, Fellowship, Grace, Gulf Coast, Heartland, Heritage, Illiana, Iowa, James River, Korean Northeastern, Korean Northwest, Korean Southern, New Jersey, New River, Northern New England, Northwest Georgia, Ohio, Pee Dee, Philadelphia Metro West, Platte Valley, Providence, Savannah River, Siouxlands, Southeast Alabama, Southwest Florida, Warrior, West Hudson.
What is the status of these presbyteries with respect to Overture 15?
As recording a dissent indicates more impassioned opposition to Overture 15, it is reasonable to believe that these commissioners may be playing a role to that effect in their presbyteries. To date (January 25, 2023), 51 presbyteries have voted on Overture 15, with 30 voting to pass and 21 voting not to pass, under the two-thirds threshold to bring the amendment to the floor of the 50th General Assembly. Overture 15 has passed in 81 percent of the presbyteries without a dissenting commissioner (17-4), while it has only passed in 47 percent of the presbyteries with a dissenting commissioner (14-16).

Concluding Thoughts
As I’ve already stated, I have great respect for presbyterian polity, and the processes by which men debate issues at hand, vote, and even express disagreement with outcomes. It is therefore important for men elected to office to engage with the issues and participate in the process. This includes both teaching and ruling elders. Given some of the disparities on those dissenting, for good or for ill, ruling elders are the tillermen who will help steer the direction of the PCA by their participation or lack thereof.
Matthew Lee is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Fayetteville, AR.
Related Posts:

Where feminism questions the place of the maleness of Jesus in the bigger story of the Christian gospel, transgender ideology undermines the very reality of his maleness altogether. Whether or not Jesus was a man, a woman, or some non-binary “other” becomes an open-ended question in the worldview of contemporary gender theorists.[6]. What is one to do in the face of such destructive ideological trends that undermine the truth about Jesus?

From its very beginning, true Christianity has been threatened by false teachers that disguise themselves with the terminology of the Christian faith but define the terms in radically different ways. These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing that Jesus and the apostles warned us about (see Matt. 7:15 and Acts 20:29). In Machen’s day, the most threatening wolf among the sheep was classic liberalism in the mold of Schleiermacher, Strauss, Von Harnack, and Rauschenbusch. Such thinkers and their disciples had feasted on the fare of enlightenment modernism and were feeding it in large supply to the unsuspecting masses. In our day, the modernist presuppositions of that age have given way to postmodernism with a plethora of ideologies that are hostile to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Many of these ideas find happy expression under the banner of “progressive Christianity” where they are comfortably peddled with historic, Christian labels. But make no mistake, the labels are not defined in historic, Christian ways. As with the liberalism of Machen’s day, the progressive ideas of our own day are not really a version of Christianity but a different religion altogether.
Major Ideological Challenges to Orthodox Christology
Many are the challenges facing true Christianity generally, and Christology specifically, under the present-day banner of progressive Christianity. In Part One, I summarized the major critiques Machen leveled against liberal Christology. In this second part of the essay I will briefly survey just three of these destructive ideas and how they impact Christology in particular. I will follow this with a summary of three historic, orthodox Christological convictions evident in Machen’s chapter on the person of Christ because no matter the specific form of the doctrine of wolves, the doctrine of the true sheep is consistent from age to age. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). His sheep hear his voice; he knows them, and they follow him (John 10:27). Just as Christ himself does not change, neither does his trusted and true voice to his beloved sheep.
1. Religious Pluralism
One of the banner truths of progressive Christianity today is religious pluralism. According to the ideology of pluralism, all religious truth claims have validity as pathways to ultimate fulfillment. The real test for the legitimacy of religious truth is not the distinctive claims of a particular religion but the common ground they all share. For example, a Muslim may regard Muhammed as the greatest and only infallible prophet, a Buddhist may seek nirvana through transcendental meditation, and an orthodox Christian may seek heaven through faith in Jesus and forgiveness of sins. These evident differences, however, are not the heart of true religion according to pluralism. The heart is to be found in certain moral principles they all share, rooted in love for one’s fellow man. By prioritizing the common principles of love and basic morality (what true Christianity understands in terms of general revelation, common grace, and natural law) over the particularizing doctrinal claims of each tradition, pluralism seeks to eliminate any claim of uniqueness on the part of Christianity or any other religion.
It is not difficult to see how pluralism directly affects the historic doctrine of the person of Christ. Orthodox Christians in every age have believed and confessed that the Lord Jesus Christ, who became truly human, is also truly God from all eternity. Christians affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, that the one true and living God exists eternally as three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One of these divine persons, the Son, “took on flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) as Jesus of Nazareth. The eternally begotten Son of God became the temporally born Son of Mary—two distinct categories of sonship, one and the same Son. If pluralism is true, however, then the historic Christian doctrines of Trinity and incarnation cannot be true. If the eternally divine Son became a man and opened the way for his sheep to have eternal life, that particular way is unique among all other claims. That is, if the New Testament claims about the deity of Christ are true, then its claims of exclusivity are necessarily true as well. If, as pluralism would have it, the New Testament claims of exclusivity are not true, then the deity of Christ is necessarily untrue also, and the historic Christian doctrine of the incarnation becomes mere myth or metaphor.[1]
2. Feminism
Another dominant ideological force of progressive Christianity is feminism. The general narrative that women have been subjugated by men throughout history—and that the chief moral aim of mankind ought to be liberation of women from this oppression—has made its way into the discourse of Christian theology at the hands of feminist theologians. Noting the prevalence of masculine names, imagery, and language for God in the Bible—God as warrior, God as “Father,” male pronouns for God, etc.—feminist theologians have sought to “liberate” Scripture from the “androcentric patriarchy” of the cultural ethos in which it was written. This inevitably resulted in a feminization of God-talk that took many forms—appealing to the language of “goddess,” searching for biblical and theological warrant to call God “Mother,” and the explicit use of feminine pronouns for God.
Direct re-thinking of Christology was not far behind the broader trends of feminist theology. Feminist theologians were quick to raise the question of whether a male savior could savingly represent females and whether female priests and pastors (a non-negotiable commitment of feminist theology) could adequately represent a male Christ to their flocks. Thus, the maleness of the incarnate Lord is presented by feminist theologians as a serious problem to be solved rather than a positive aspect of the good news. Some find the maleness of Jesus to be irreconcilable with feminist principles and thus abandon any semblance of Christianity altogether.[2] Others see the problem in the patriarchal worldview of Christian interpretations of Jesus’ maleness, so that the entire theological and philosophical foundation of traditional Christianity must be upended and re-written before a male savior can have any significance, much less saving benefit for women.[3] This upending of the foundations must reach, not only to the interpretations of holy Scripture, but into the very presuppositions, intentions, and claims of the Scriptural authors themselves.
Read More
Related Posts: