The first section of the Report does a wonderful job of upholding our understanding of what is required in the Moral Law, both in what is forbidden by the Ten Commandments and in what is positively required of them. Westminster Larger Catechism questions 129-151 provide the framework for this section.  It would be difficult to come away from Section 1 without agreement that not only is abuse a grave sin, but that it is our duty as Churches, Church officers, and a denomination to proactively create a safe environment for those in our care and to love and protect victims well when abuse comes to light.

The church should be a sanctuary for victims, a training ground to prevent assault, and a facilitator of emotional, spiritual, and physical healing. (PCA AIC DASA Report, p. 2402)
The Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) Ad Interim Committee (AIC) on Domestic Abuse and Sexual Abuse (DASA) recently released its Report to be presented at the 49th General Assembly later this month.  Given everything that has gone on in the news and online with other denominations releasing reports of abuse in their ranks, there has been much confusion over this PCA document; what it is, what it is not, and what place it has within our polity.
First, What the Report Is NOT:

It is not an analysis or investigation of allegations of abuse in the PCA.
It is not binding on PCA Churches in any way.
It is not going to be either “approved” or “adopted” by the PCA.

Second, What the Report Is:
In 2019 the 47th General Assembly of the PCA adopted an overture to form an Ad Interim Committee[1] to study the topic of Abuse, which the Report defines as “persistent maltreatment that causes lasting damage”(p. 2306). Additionally, it states “for the purposes of this report, all forms of physical and nonphysical (emotional, psychological, spiritual) abuse will be considered equally sinful” (p. 2307).[2] The Assembly directed the Committee to fulfill a number of tasks, chief among them being that:
The Committee shall report regarding best practices and guidelines that could be helpful for elders, Sessions, Presbyteries, and agencies for protecting against these sins and for responding to them. However, no practice, policy, or guideline will be proposed for adoption or approval. It is simply information, which shall not be binding or obligatory in any sense. (p. 2301)
The result is a 220-page technical yet pastoral document that has two main parts:

Biblical and theological foundations of understanding abuse (Section 1)
Practical pastoral aspects of abuse in the church (Sections 2 – 6)[3]

What the Report Does Well

It is both Biblical & Confessional

The first section of the Report does a wonderful job of upholding our understanding of what is required in the Moral Law, both in what is forbidden by the Ten Commandments and in what is positively required of them. Westminster Larger Catechism questions 129-151 provide the framework for this section.  It would be difficult to come away from Section 1 without agreement that not only is abuse a grave sin, but that it is our duty as Churches, Church officers, and a denomination to proactively create a safe environment for those in our care and to love and protect victims well when abuse comes to light.

Body & Soul

The Report convincingly makes the case that abuse is not just physical, affecting the body, but that it affects the very soul and being of a person (p. 2311).[4] This is meant to show how emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuse truly are abuse.

Matthew 18 vs. Romans 13

Churches need to understand that there are times when a faithful application of Romans 13 takes precedence over a well-intentioned but mistaken approach to Matthew 18 (pp. 2332, 2399).  Many cases have been botched, pain increased, and future abuse facilitated because the heart of Church leadership was to confront the accused (Matthew 18) rather than report the alleged crime to the governing authorities who are ordained by God for such a task (Romans 13).  Additionally, in the United States of America, there are unique legal reporting requirements that pastors and ministry leaders must obey in each State or civil jurisdiction.

Case-by-Case & Step-by-Step Guidance

While pastors and ministry leaders should read the entire first section of the AIC Report in order to understand the basis for the subsequent sections, it is very helpful to be able to turn right to sections 2-6 for guidance related to specific types of abuse, how to care for the victims, and how to proceed with investigations procedurally in line with BCO 31-2 (p. 2338). The Attachments aid with this. Attachment 6: Comprehensive Child Protection Policy is particularly helpful.

Gospel Hope

While the Report is sobering, it is full of gospel hope.  There are multiple sections on shepherding, for both the victim and the abuser. There are sections on the subjects of forgiveness and repentance.
Read More
[1] BCO, Rules of Assembly Operations, Article IX.
[2] It is unclear how this principle of equality plays out in the Report. At times in certain sections of the Report, the word “abuse” is used broadly, as in this quote on page 2307. At other points in the Report, “abuse” is used in a limited way to denote the type of abuse being discussed in a given section. However, even the Report acknowledges that our d
octrinal Standards (i.e., WLC 151) do not count all sins as equally heinous (p. 2309). Yes, all abuse is sin deserving of Hell. Yes, emotional abuse is really and truly abuse (and therefore, sin), and as such it inflicts damage upon souls and calls down God’s just judgement upon the perpetrator(s). However, rape and child sexual abuse are clearly more heinous sins than non-physical sinful abusive patterns and behaviors that men and women commit in their various relationships. Our doctrinal commitment to understanding gradations of heinousness of sin from one instance or kind of abuse to another is not clearly articulated in the Report.
[3] Each section includes unverified case studies that allegedly happened in the PCA, described for illustrative purposes.
[4] This is in line with how Calvin understood the soul, as is reflected in his Institutes.I.15.
Related Posts:

Our joy and happiness on the Sabbath morning and evening should come not from the elaborate displays of outward means, but from the inward assurance of gospel peace. Lastly the worship that happens in that room should emulate these principles as well. Really all that should take place in a Presbyterian service are the means of grace: preaching, singing, praying, communion, and baptism. 

We’ve all heard the jokes about Presbyterian’s being anti-fun, the so-called frozen chosen. The seen, but not heard denomination. The post you are about to read is going to sound like it came from the official spokesman of the “Presbyterians against anything nice” coalition. Maybe it’s true, maybe I am the grumpiest Presbyterian alive, but my goal here today is not to get hits or cause trouble. Rabble rousers are boring people. Men who seek out controversy don’t have enough to do and they aren’t really seeking to win converts to their position. They just like to see the fight.
At the end of the day I’m really a harmless little fuzzball who just wants Presbyterians to be Presbyterians, Baptists to be Baptists, and Anglicans to be Anglicans. Good fences make good neighbors. If you know where the other person stands it makes it easier to know where you stand.
The topic I’d like to get into today is about the meeting space. Some call it the “sanctuary”, others the “preaching hall”, and whatever you want to call it is fine by me. I’m not interested in getting into arguments over words. There are legit reasons why some people demur from the sanctuary term, and why others like it as a description of where we meet for worship. Christians who are members of long-standing congregations likely are used to a more traditionally-expressed term than church plants and/or younger churches. But regardless of where you meet or what you call it there are certain things as Presbyterians we should expect to see, and not see.
In this brief piece I want to talk about some of the reasons behind the austere look favored by the Reformed, where it came from, and why it matters. To be sure there is a sense in which in the New Testament it doesn’t matter where we meet with God’s people. As men and women who descend from Covenanters who hid in vales and caves to lift up the psalms to the Lord and be fed by His word we should acutely feel that. This is also a very American, if not Western, question. I’ve never been to the nations of Africa, but it is a safe assumption through pictures and the witness of native believers that what is expected in Malawi is different than what is to be understood in South Carolina. Part of the beauty of Presbyterian worship is that you don’t need a fancy place with a bunch of pomp and circumstance. All you need is a Bible and Christians. The Scriptures contain the text for instruction and the book of songs to sing, the people have the voices to raise to Heaven.
What more do you need?
Having set the stage let’s get to…setting the stage. One of the first things that marks a Presbyterian meeting place is that the pulpit should be in the center. The Reformers replaced the altar with the stand upon which the Minister placed his Bible. The symbolism was meant to testify to the fact that the preaching of the word was at the forefront of Christian worship. Having a split chancel (two pulpits up front, one to the left and one to the right, usually one larger than the other) usually grants the central space to a table. This is a return back to the Roman rite. As vital and important as the Supper is to the souls of believers we don’t believe it is the primary means of grace.
Read More
Related Posts:

I am still learning about Law and Gospel through the scriptures, and Luther helps me take hold of them, because the flesh always abides and the Gospel is always counterintuitive. Thus, the good Doctor wisely teaches me that I will never fully learn these lessons until I am finally purged of my sinful, self-justifying flesh in glory. In summary, Luther teaches me that I am still a sinner (by nature) and righteous (only by faith), and so I will need to hear and believe the Gospel every single day until I die and see my Savior face-to-face.

“What is a nice OPC minister like you doing constantly quoting Martin Luther on Twitter?” is the familiar refrain after people take a gander at my feed. Normally, I admit when I am guilty as charged, but there is no great guilt in learning from the good Doctor Luther. I would describe myself as an old-school, confessional Presbyterian. When I say I am “Reformed,” I mean that I sincerely subscribe to the Westminster Standards as a minister of the Gospel in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In my prior calling as a minister in the URCNA, I also gladly subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity because I am persuaded they fully agree with the Word of God.
In 2015, I left the PCA after 12 years of ministry there, in part, over the matter of confessional subscription. I was no longer comfortable with how the practice of “good faith subscription” seemed to be working out there, especially with the exoneration of ministers who publicly taught contrary to the Westminster Standards by espousing the Federal Vision error. I am sympathetic with my confessional brothers in the PCA, as they continue to deal with the inevitable if unintended consequences of good faith as it plays out now in the Revoice controversary.
In other words, I mean it when I say that I am confessionally Reformed. I am decidedly not confessionally Lutheran. So, what accounts for my love of Martin Luther? Luther taught me things that I believe are entirely compatible with my Reformed commitments. In fact, what I have learned from him clarifies and strengthens those commitments.
First, I learned from Luther that “Christ-centered” is not merely a slogan; it truly shapes the way I read Scripture, how I preach, and how I pastor. Luther said, “It is beyond a doubt that the entire Scripture points to Christ alone.”1 For some years, “Christ-centered and Gospel-driven,” and “preaching the Gospel to yourself” were popular slogans among the Young, Restless, and Reformed-ish crowd. Some, it seems, have moved on to other things, like mercy ministry or variations on the theme of social justice, but Christ as the center of Scripture is not a fad. The Gospel as the animating force of Christian life is not a gimmick. Luther understood the necessity of pounding this truth into the human heart: “The article of justification must be sounded in our ears incessantly because the frailty of our flesh will not permit us to take hold of it perfectly and to believe it with all our heart.” 2
I highly recommend Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel (originally published in The Library of Christian Classics but now republished via Muriwai Books for Kindle). There you can see Luther comforting the doubting and despondent by applying the healing balm of Christ and Him crucified to their wounds. There is certainly some good advice in his letters, but the main thrust of his pastoral counsel is to remind sinners and sufferers of the sufficiency of Christ. In his efforts to encourage, Luther frequently cites Jesus’ words in John 16:33: “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
Luther also taught me the importance of rightly distinguishing the Law and the Gospel, both for my own sake and for the sake of my flock. Luther’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians is a must-read for this purpose alone. As he explains, “It seems a small matter to mingle the Law and Gospel, faith and works, but it creates more mischief than man’s brain can conceive. To mix Law and Gospel not only clouds the knowledge of grace, but it also cuts out Christ altogether.”3 Is this yet another example of Luther’s gift of hyperbole in action?
Read More
Related Posts: