The PCA has a structure for bringing charges against members and officers, and it requires two witnesses of an alleged offense. These two witnesses may be either people or material (e.g., police report). But these scandal-mongering blogs bypass the judicial system of the Church entirely and instead slander the good name and reputation of the PCA as well as her officers and members by spewing these allegations publicly.

We frequently hear about abuse in the PCA. In 2017 concern regarding abuse dominated the secular news media following disturbing revelations surrounding men named Weinstein and Epstein. Concern for this sparked a number of hashtags such as #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen.
Now – years later – some within the Church have built a platform for themselves as “Abuse advocates” purporting to expose abuse within the Church and particularly the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Even before the recent General Assembly had concluded, Emily Belz in Christianity Today decided there was an abuse crisis in the PCA. She bases her assertion on anonymous, self-appointed “abuse advocates” who say there is.
What is Abuse?
Abuse is hard to define. In Michigan, the worldlings assert abuse is using the wrong pronouns to hurt someone’s feelings. For those influenced by the world, calling a person to repent of his or her sins is abusive.
The PCA must guard against this view of abuse. Some may remember a former PCA pastor, who – facing potential ecclesiastical discipline fled with his congregation into independency – decried it was spiritually abusive to encourage people in the hope of sanctification and the mortification of sexual sins and vile passions.
In contrast to these worldly definitions, the PCA received a report from a committee that studied domestic abuse and sexual assault (DASA); the report defines abuse this way:
persistent maltreatment that causes lasting damage. In this sense, abuse is a misuse of power. Misuse of power can take several forms (physical, verbal, positional, etc.), but the essence of abuse is that it is a misuse of power which wounds another person physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually. (pp. 2306-7; emphasis original)
That is a helpful definition; it recognizes abuse beyond physical forms, e.g., spiritual and emotional abuse. It also highlights that abuse constitutes a “misuse of power,” which is true, but at the same time Christians must guard against allowing a Marxist view of power-dynamics to inform what we consider to be abuse.
Nonetheless, a definition of abuse such as this helps us to distinguish abuse from other sinful patterns or behaviors. Certainly, abuse in its general sense is simply the “misuse of a thing;” all sin is therefore abuse. But if my five year old hits his sister with a Brio train track, is he abusing her?
In one sense yes, but – given that she (for now) outclasses him in terms of height, weight, and strength – in another sense no, since the power differential clearly favors the one on the receiving end and his mother will quickly correct that sinful behavior.
Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish abuse from other expressions of sin and depravity. Often it is quite subjective and comes down to Justice Stewart’s test: “I’ll know it when I see it.”
Alleged Abuse in the PCA
Apart from the aforementioned DASA committee report, abuse seems to be used with alarming frequency in the PCA courts lately. Even the British press covered a situation in which a prominent Nashville pastor was suspended by Presbytery due to abusive behavior. Elsewhere there are instances in which church planters have stepped down and/or are facing discipline because of abusive patterns.
In a more infamous situation, an urban church planter was recently exonerated of claims of abuse (i.e. bullying and sexual harassment) by the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). The basis for exoneration was the evidence:
Where unambiguous digital or documentary evidence existed, however, it strongly supported the arguments of the Accused, providing objective proof against these specific allegations of sin. This fact affected the Panel’s assessment of the credibility to ascribe to testimony for which there was no tangible evidence or for which there were no third-party witnesses. After carefully examining all the evidence, The Panel unanimously agreed that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof in this case. (p. 14)
While there is little doubt in this situation improprieties occurred, the SJC did not believe the evidence supported the serious allegations against the accused.
The Biblical Standard
The aforementioned case was a source of much consternation and seemed to be a key turning point for many to conclude there is an “abuse crisis” within the PCA. Twitter and other social media were filled with reactionary outcry in the wake of the decision.
This outcry broadened into rage against the Church judicial system as a whole aiming to depict the PCA as a nest of abusers. New hashtags, customized for the PCA, have been promoted and new websites have been launched: some claim to provide resources for victims; others – more disturbingly – publish sensational allegations aimed at discrediting well-respected saints and harming the reputation of the Church.
In one particularly egregious instance, an anonymous ex-wife of an unnamed PCA pastor makes outlandish claims about an abuse cover-up by one of the most well-respected women in the PCA. But tellingly, the blogpost is riddled with errors of fact, which undermine the veracity of its claims.
I will not link to examples of the sites alluded to above because I do not wish to further publicize outrageous and unsubstantiated claims that malign Christ’s bride. Part of the trouble with these blogs is they vent claims of decades’ old grievances against the PCA as well as members or elders in good standing without any actual evidence.
They make assertions, which are readily believed by scandal-hungry people and provide fodder on which gossipy “abuse fetishists” will graze for weeks to the detriment of their souls.
The PCA has a structure for bringing charges against members and officers, and it requires two witnesses of an alleged offense. These two witnesses may be either people or material (e.g., police report). But these scandal-mongering blogs bypass the judicial system of the Church entirely and instead slander the good name and reputation of the PCA as well as her officers and members by spewing these allegations publicly.
Perhaps there are some who believe the standard of evidence (two witnesses) required by the PCA is too high.
Read More
Related Posts:

Envision worship in heaven. We’d never imagine poorly attired cherubim and seraphim imbibing some drink while worshiping God, would we?  Nor any angel or host of angels responding to God in any type of lackadaisical manner.  Neither should we. We should come to God in worship with our humblest attitude, appropriately attired, not distracted with earthly needs, and not sharing his glory with any human being.  All who are present in our worship services should be overwhelmed by how we all are focused on the one true God and revere his majesty.

As a missionary to the Muslim world, I couldn’t be unimpressed with the reverence Muslims bring to their worship of Allah—standing, then on knees and touching their heads to the floor.  In Christendom there are different approaches to the practice of worship. For example, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches bring a visible reverence to worshipping God, kneeling, sitting, and standing according to the liturgy taking place.  Protestant churches, whether evangelical, reformed or progressive, traditionally show reverence in worship in their regular practice of sitting and standing.  Lately, there have been some changes in some of the latter; a casual, less reverent ambiance appears to be growing in some churches.
What are some trends of lapsing down reverence of worship to Almighty God?  One may have begun with clerics no longer wearing robes, which is neither right nor wrong. Yet it may have measurably diminished formality and authority (consider that judges wear robes as a sign of their authority). More formal or less formal attire doesn’t contradict Scripture—first century church leaders dressed as everyone else.  Israelite priests wore specific apparel as commanded in the Law.
Another is casual dress.  In the past, people attending worship dressed in their “Sunday best.” What people wore was intended to show respect for God; understandably, if we aren’t careful it could turn into making a fashion statement.  The result was that whether rich or poor, the manner of dressing appropriately to the occasion made all more equal in appearance.  It appears that in recent years our overall manner of dress has become more casual to the point that our clothing appears poorer with holes and such in them.  It may mean that the unintended consequence of dressing down may result in a lack of respect toward God as we worship him, in contrast to the Psalmist exhortation,  “Worship the Lord in holy attire” (Psalm 96: 9).
Can the approaches to worship over the centuries be called a  lapsing-down of worship? By “lapsing-down” is a way to describe a lapse of awe, reverence, and worship of Almighty God as our Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer and Judge. Our worship is to be directed to God alone.
Now the practice is to applaud or clap after musical performances or testimonies. Why may this be disconcerting?  Worship is to laud and honor God alone.  Scripture refers to clapping to God, which clapping while singing may be appropriate.  We don’t normally clap for the Scripture readings, prayers, or sermons, do we?  These parts of worship may be more appropriate to receive such affirmation, more than applauding human performances. Children can be taught to sing to the Lord to bring attention to Him and not to themselves. Worship and entertainment are not the same.
Another trend current in our modern worship is bringing drinks into the sanctuary.  Worship is not entertainment in a theater or a lecture in a classroom.  Worship is other worldly; it’s spiritual.  Sipping or drinking can be disrespectful in worship.  What’s next, eating in worship?  The time to eat and drink in worship is during the sacrament of Lord’s Supper.  There is a certain decorum expected at formal events such as a presidential address.  That is not the time or place to drink coffee or lemonade, which those attending don’t. Doesn’t God deserve better?  Our entering into God’s presence is a call to humility, awe, and reverence.
Dr. Carl R. Trueman recently wrote, “God is a consuming fire and to be approached with awe and reverence.”  Envision worship in heaven. We’d never imagine poorly attired cherubim and seraphim imbibing some drink while worshiping God, would we?  Nor any angel or host of angels responding to God in any type of lackadaisical manner.  Neither should we. We should come to God in worship with our humblest attitude, appropriately attired, not distracted with earthly needs, and not sharing his glory with any human being.  All who are present in our worship services should be overwhelmed by how we all are focused on the one true God and revere his majesty. Instead of lapsing in our worship, rather let us acclaim in our worship the glory He deserves:
“Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God, The Almighty, Who was and Who is and Who is to come; Worthy are You, our Lord and our God to receive glory and honor and power” (Revelation 4: 8, 11).
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts:

As the late Professor John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia put it: “The work produced by the Westminster Assembly has lived and will permanently live. The reason is obvious. The work was wrought with superb care, patience, precision, and above all with earnest and intelligent devotion to the Word of God and zeal for His glory. Sanctified theological learning has never been brought to bear with greater effect upon the formulation of the Christian Faith. 

Let me take you back to seventeenth-century England—1643, to be precise.
King Charles I was increasingly hostile to the Puritans and their Reformed theology. And members of Parliament—many of whom were Puritans and Puritan sympathizers—were becoming increasingly aggrieved by the king. They were convinced that there was still a lot of work to be done in the Church of England, that it still needed to be reformed in light of Scripture.
Although the English Church had separated itself from Rome during the English Reformation more than one hundred years earlier, the Puritans felt it hadn’t gone far enough. So, with that in mind, Parliament called upon Reformed theologians to meet at Westminster Abbey. Their job was to advise Parliament on issues of worship, doctrine, government, and discipline in the Church of England.
Despite a royal proclamation prohibiting its meeting, the assembly first met on 1st July, 1643, at the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey, before later moving to the abbey’s Jerusalem Chamber.
This Westminster Assembly consisted of 151 men, which included twenty laypeople from the House of Commons and ten from the House of Lords.
The assembly lasted officially until 1649, although it continued to meet occasionally until 1652. And those present certainly did not slack during that time. Over the course of the six years between 1643 and 1649, they met 1,163 times.
The documents they produced are known as the Westminster Standards, namely:

the Westminster Confession of Faith
the Larger and Shorter Catechisms
the Directory for the Public Worship of God (which is a sort of liturgical manual)
and the Form of Presbyterial Church Government (which describes how churches ought to be structured and governed)

Read More