God has been abundantly kind, patient, and good to the PCA for the last 51 years and especially so recently. Since 2018, the PCA is has strengthened her commitment to marriage and historic, biblical sexuality, she has enhanced her focus on holding one another accountable through the Presbyteries, and is currently seeking to expand her ties with Reformed Churches globally. It is a great day to be in the PCA.

Editorial Note: I’m compiling a YouTube playlist on many of the speeches from this year’s General Assembly if you want to see some of the men make the arguments summarized here.
I have written a report on the General Assembly each year since at least 2015, and the transformation in that time is remarkable. In 2015 I summarized the state of the PCA after the Chattanooga Assembly for my elders and the congregation I served in this way:
We are, on the whole, a “sound” denomination, and there was much that was encouraging about the future of the PCA, but there were a few items of great concern.
Looking back nearly a decade later and forward to another General Assembly in Chattanooga next year, the character of the Assembly has profoundly changed; we’re no longer merely ‘on the whole a “sound” denomination.” Since 2015, the PCA has taken significant strides toward confessional renewal and to embrace our identity as a robustly Reformed and profoundly Presbyterian communion.
It is a great time to be in the PCA.
The Assembly begins with a worship service. The first worship service served as an exemplar of Reformed and Presbyterian worship. There were very few musicians, no “special music,” the musicians understood their role as accompanists rather than performers. The preaching, by retiring Moderator TE Fred Greco, was a faithful, exegetical passionate, personal proclamation of God’s word calling us to be “Faithful to the Scripture.”
What a blessing it is to worship with thousands of others according to the simple and beautiful principles of biblically ordered worship. Thanks to RE Rick Hutton of All Saints Reformed Presbyterian Church for his leadership in planning this worship service.
I. Presiding Officer: the Election of a Moderator
Only one man was put forward for moderator, RE Steve Dowling; he was nominated by RE Melton Duncan. RE Dowling is a faithful churchman and served the Assembly last year as Overtures Committee Chairman as well as for many years on the Standing Judicial Commission.
He has been active in the Mission to the Military and Internationals working to promote church planting abroad.
This Assembly featured some procedural surprises, and RE Dowling ably and skillfully steered the Assembly with clarity and even-handedness, wit and good cheer.
II. Polity
A. Officer Titles
The Assembly made an impressive start on Tuesday night by approving all three BCO changes ratified by the Presbyteries. Both Item 2 (chastity in character, convictions, and conduct for officers) and Item 3 (requiring a person’s confession of sin to be reviewed by those whom s/he offended) passed with little opposition
Item 1, however, passed only after considerable debate. Item 1 restricts the ecclesiastical use of the titles of Pastor, Elder, and Deacon to ordained officers only. This is a necessary and narrow change because numerous churches have women or other unordained people using the titles of church office, but without ordination.
At least one PCA church in Atlanta has a woman pastor.
Item 1 makes it abundantly clear that in the PCA every Pastor, Elder, and Deacon has been ordained and elected to office and that churches are prohibited from giving those titles to unordained people.
There were several speeches in opposition to this change. While there was one speech that made a biblical argument for women in the office of deacon, most other speeches centered on two other major objections: (1) the longstanding practice of referring to women and unordained people with the titles of church office or (2) the cultural customs of some of the churches to use these titles for non-officers.
I was disappointed by some of the particular arguments. Even before this change, our Book of Church Order already was abundantly clear the titles of elder and deacon were to be used in ecclesiastical contexts to refer only to ordained men (cf. BCO 17-1). I found it shocking Elders were willing to admit on the floor of the Assembly that they and/or their Session are not in conformity with the requirements of PCA’s Constitution.
Item 1 made no change in what was lawful in the PCA. It simply added a paragraph to BCO 7 that weaves together in one place requirements stipulated in multiple places elsewhere in the BCO (cf. BCO 9-1, 9-3, 16-3, and 17-1).
B. Review of Presbytery Records (RPR)
The RPR has become the center of greater focus as the competing visions for the PCA interact more directly. One side of the PCA seems to envision a polity that is driven by broad adherence to the general outlines of procedure and theology, whereas another wing of the PCA believes in more careful observance of our constitution and procedures.
For the past few years the latter vision of the PCA has been able to persuade the Assembly to demand closer adherence to our Rules. This year’s RPR report and the debate featured numerous attempts to alter the RPR Report to remove “exceptions of substance” and allow questionable Presbytery actions to stand without the General Assembly requiring the Presbytery to explain further or respond to questions raised by the action.
Two items warrant further discussion. In addition to simply finding exceptions of substance, sometimes the RPR Committee will discover issues in Presbytery actions, which they believe are grossly unconstitutional (BCO 40-5). In two cases, the General Assembly referred matters to the Judicial Commission.
1. New York Metro Presbytery (MNY)
Continuing the multi-year saga flowing from MNY’s initial failure to adequately redress a situation of a priestess pretending to preach in a PCA pulpit, the General Assembly again found the Presbytery to have failed to abide by the Constitution.
The issue this year seemed to center on the Presbytery’s failure to institute judicial process against the senior minister of a church who confessed to a view that is contrary to the standards of the PCA and the teaching of the Scripture (BCO 29-1). This minister’s view led to the scandal with the priestess in the pulpit.
The General Assembly’s Judicial Commission will now have to determine how to remedy the situation given the Presbytery’s alleged failure to abide by our Constitution.
2 . Columbus Metro Presbytery (CMP)
Whereas the MNY matter came to the Assembly through the ordinary review of minutes, the CMP matter came by means of a letter from a former member of a now-closed PCA Congregation near Columbus, Ohio. Interestingly, it seemed – based on comments on the floor – that the elders reviewing CMP’s minutes did not notice this very serious issue, but the only reason it was before the Assembly was due to a single letter from a concerned member. There are many layers of PCA polity to ensure transparency and accountability.
In the letter, the member alleged CMP unlawfully closed the congregation without giving the requisite 60-day notice and then took control of the Congregation’s assets without the consent of the members of the congregation.
It appears the Presbytery may have ignored the pleas of the members to keep the little congregation open after the Ruling Elders and pastor resigned.
This is the second time in two years our GA Handbook has contained reference to a PCA Church Court usurping the rights of the congregation. It is interesting a speech on the floor seemed to argue that since the value of the assets was only about $18,000, this matter should not rise to a judicial reference, but instead should simply be handled as an ordinary matter of an exception of substance.
By an overwhelming margin, the Assembly rejected arguments that this matter appeared to be anything other than a grossly unconstitutional action (cf. BCO 25-8).
I am thankful the Assembly – like its judicial commission last year – clearly and unequivocally stood up for the rights of the (now dissolved) congregation and directed its judicial commission to consider the matter.
C. Preaching
After limited debate, the Assembly declined to grant constitutional authority to the BCO Chapter 53 regarding preaching (by a mere 49 votes: 857-906).
It is unclear as of yet why the Assembly rejected this proposal. It may be a fear or suspicion regarding codifying our principles that govern worship; it may be that people reacted against the emphasis of the “Whereas” statements rather than the substance of the proposal.
I believe another reason this failed is simply that many faithful presbyters are – on principle – opposed to changing our Constitution unless it can be proven to be absolutely necessary. Given how almost every other vote went, I suspect there were a number in the “Old School” wing of the PCA who may have withheld their “yeas” on this question because its necessity had not been sufficiently demonstrated.
Similarly, I think the proponents of this change linked its fate far too closely to a “women in pulpits” concern rather than dealing with the importance of preaching as a means of grace. Instead of seeing this issue as part of the culture war and gender roles, I believe we should have considered this question as part of the broader philosophical identity of the PCA and what we believe preaching is.
I hope the “Old School” wing of the PCA will reconsider and strengthen this proposal in the future and invest more heavily in its adoption into the Constitution by showing the necessity of this chapter in particular. I believe the PCA would benefit from a more fully developed Directory of Worship that reflects the teaching of the Scripture and balances the two Scriptural principles contained in BCO 47-6:
The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter.
And
There is true liberty only where the rules of God’s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God’s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.
When we balance these principles (biblical liberty and order), there is room for diversity of forms and expression, while still being united by a shared theology and philosophy of worship that is regulated according to the Scripture.
D. RUF Affiliation Agreement
The Assembly adopted a standardized affiliation agreement to govern the relationship between Presbyteries and RUF Ministries. This will provide for more seamless collaboration between Lawrenceville and the Regional staff of RUF with the local campus ministry and the supporting presbytery.
Read More

Related Posts:

Individual believers are not Christ’s bride; His church is. Individual singleness does not point to the heavenly marriage; the church does. Yes, people can be fully human and complete without marriage. No, singleness is not a picture of heaven. While scripture nowhere presents singleness as a picture of heaven, it constantly presents marriage as a picture of heaven. Therefore, believers do not “embrace” “this future reality” by being single. Instead, they show and receive a small taste in marriage.

Whether it’s the 4B movement in South Korea or the trend of households in the United States, singleness is a growing reality. This, in turn, is leading to an alarming drop in fertility around the globe.
In short, post-familialism and its sobering consequences in the US and abroad are certainly the present and very likely the future of modern life. But is singleness our ultimate future? Our heavenly future?
In his article Does Singleness Waste My Sexuality?, Sam Allberry claims that singleness provides us with a powerful human picture of the heavenly state. After a helpful explanation of how earthly marriages point toward heavenly marriage Allberry states:
[Jesus’] singleness on earth bore witness to this ultimate marriage he had come to establish.
Singleness for us now is also a way of bearing witness to this reality. Like Jesus, we can live in a way that anticipates what is to come. Singleness now is a way of saying that this future reality is so certain and so good that we can embrace it now.
But does singleness in the present age indeed point forward to heaven? Does it embrace the future? Is it appropriate to compare our singleness to that of our Lord Jesus? And how might we encourage those who are grieving the losses that come with this state?
Marriage in Heaven
In the Gospels the religious leaders wanted to destroy Jesus. A few days before the death of Christ, they sought to trap him with a riddle, having failed before at this same scheme with a trick question about taxes. They proceeded instead to the topic of marriage (cf. Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40). The Sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection) ran their best play: a question meant to reveal how laughable it is to claim that there is life after death. What if a woman has seven consecutive husbands here on Earth? Of course, she cannot be married to all seven at once in heaven, so who will be the lucky man wedded to her for all eternity? They believed there was no answer, making them confident they will stump Jesus just like everyone else they have asked. Instead, he rejects the question’s premise:
Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. –  Mark 12:24–25 ESV
But why will marriage change in heaven? Jesus does not reveal this directly, but he points to the answer by naming the Sadducees’ problem: a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures. Those who know the Scriptures understand that human marriages are all meant to point to one, final heavenly marriage. The Old Testament gives a picture of marriage between God and His people (cf. Ezekiel 16:8-21, Isaiah 54:5-8, Hosea 2:19-23); the New Testament between Christ and His bride the church (cf. Ephesians 5:22-33, Revelation 21:1-4).
Marriage is meant to teach about heaven. Thus, there will be no marriage between humans in heaven because earthly marriage will be obsolete. A mere picture is unnecessary when the reality arrives. The appetizers disappear when it is time for the meal. The best marriages here cannot compare to the ultimate marriage there. No matter how much love, connection, joy, intimacy, and safety you can experience in marriage now, you will experience them infinitely more in the presence of God in heaven.
Singleness does not point to heaven; marriage does. Allberry correctly affirms the latter. In fact, his article teaches much the same. However, he wrongly elevates the former. Scripture never presents singleness as an anticipation of heaven. In fact, quite the opposite. In Isaiah 56:4-5 the Lord does not encourage eunuchs that their celibacy bears witness to heaven. Instead, he tells them that heaven will reverse the pain they experience now. They should endure with faithfulness because the challenges of singleness will be replaced by something even better than marriage.
If marriage shows us a piece of heaven, then one way of “bearing witness to this reality” is by engaging in marriage. Marriage, not singleness, “anticipates what is to come.” The Bible sends us to marriage, not to singleness.
You’re Not Jesus
But what about Jesus? Does not his singleness show the goodness of ours? In one sense, yes. Allberry is correct when he teaches:
This reminds us that marriage now is not ultimate. It will be absent in the age to come and is not vital in this present time. This reality is reflected in the life of Jesus himself. The most fully human and complete person ever to live on this earth did so as someone who was single, and yet he called himself “the bridegroom.” The marriage he came for was the one all of us who are in him will enjoy will him for eternity. His singleness on earth bore witness to this ultimate marriage he had come to establish.
However, it is for these very reasons that some of Allberry’s conclusions in the next paragraph are wrong. He goes on:
Singleness for us now is also a way of bearing witness to this reality. Like Jesus, we can live in a way that anticipates what is to come. Singleness now is a way of saying that this future reality is so certain and so good that we can embrace it now. It is a way of declaring to a world obsessed with sexual and romantic intimacy that these things are not ultimate and that in Christ we possess what is.
Read More
Related Posts:

Yes, we still show up every Sunday. Yes, we still sing the songs. We still listen to the preaching. We may even take notes. We may still work in the church, but as we do it, there does not seem to be much life in it. We do all the right things, but we do them in a dragging condition because the power of the Holy Spirit is absent.

Spiritual drowsiness is something with which all Christian struggle. When Paul tells us to “wake from sleep” in Romans 13:11, we know he is speaking to Christians. He sounds the alarm because our “salvation is nearer than when we first believed.” What are some signs that we, as Christians, are spiritually sleepy? Here are four.
1. A Diminishing Interest in the Things of God
The first sign is that we begin to grow uninterested in the things of God. Maybe you are in this situation. Perhaps you can remember when you used to read the word of God and the promises used to jump off the page and move you. Maybe there was a time when you longed to listen to Christian music as much as possible because it stirred your soul with joy. Maybe you hungered to go to church to listen to good preaching, but even that was not enough. During the week, you would find sermons and teachings, depending on how long you have been a Christian, on cassette, CD, or a podcast and listen to them. Though this was your reality at one point, you now find them dull. Sign number one that we are drowsy is that we have a diminishing interest in the things of God, where in many cases, we used to have a substantial passion for them.
2. We Long for Something of the World More than God
Since our focus is not on the things of the Lord, we find that our focus tends to move toward the things of the world. There is something worldly that we are passionate about, a little bit more than God.
Read More
Related Posts: