This book is an informed history of the first half century of a denomination formed in 1973. Other works discuss the events and personalities which led up to the founding of the Presbyterian Church in America, but this one traces the development and history of that church from 1973-2023. This volume benefits from the observations of participants, while also seeking to present an accurate (not a triumphalistic) chronicle. Over this “First Fifty Years,” each year’s General Assembly is summarized with distilled commentary. Readers may view this as an informed tour through the landmarks of a young church, seeking to avoid the entropy that was affecting other churches at the time.

Irony and the Presbyterian Church in America by David W. Hall (Covenant Foundation, 2023)
The 1996 General Assembly of the PCA met in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, June 18-21. It may best be understood in contrast to several earlier Assemblies. To give some perspective, below we compare the issues of the PCA’s previous 10 years to that of the last three years.
The 24th General Assembly was hosted by the largest church in the PCA, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, pastored by D. James Kennedy. The accommodations were splendid, and the host church did as fine a job as anyone can recall. The main floor of the sanctuary was virtually filled for most meetings, with 1123 commissioners registered. Once again, the Teaching Elders outnumbered the Ruling Elders nearly 2-1. Although attendance had been about the same for the past five years, registration was down slightly—perhaps an indication of the relative absence of controversy.
CofCs began to meet on Monday afternoon, June 17th. The busiest committees were Review and Control, Bills and Overtures, and Administration. CEP brought a few issues for approval to the Assembly. MNA reiterated its goal to enlarge the PCA to 2,000 churches by 2000. MTW extolled the retirement of the $3.2-million-dollar debt—not even known three years earlier. Meanwhile, other committees fell into line by giving pro forma reports with few, if any, recommendations—lest the feisty CofCs of recent years assert too much grassroots correction.
The opening Worship Service had over 1500 people assembled (including wives and visitors) to hear retiring Moderator Frank Brock give an exhortation to “Embrace Change.” Mr. Brock, the President of Covenant College, enjoined the commissioners to move ahead and let change have its way. Following his sharing, the PCA celebrated communion led by the host Pastor. After the communion service, the Assembly elected Rev. Charles McGowan (Nashville, TN) as Moderator by acclamation. The Reverend McGowan occasionally lightened the mood with good humor and proved to be another fine Moderator. As for his rulings and demeanor, Mr. McGowan lived up to all the expectations of his exemplary character. Accusations of the Vision Caucus notwithstanding, their selections for Moderators proved fair, efficient, and beneficial to these meetings in the 1990s.
The following day the Assembly heard from the fraternal delegates. Contrary to previous years, the Interchurch Relations Committee was not as controversial in 1996. Despite a substantial overture from Northeast Presbytery to hold discussions with the OPC about “obstacles to a merger,” the CofCs voted 10-9 not to enter such, preferring instead to stick with the J&R approach. Interestingly, this recommendation (which eventually passed) would have been different—it would have favored discussion with the OPC—had two members of the Ad Interim Committee on Judicial Procedures been present at the time of the IRC Committee of Commissioners’ vote. Had Morton Smith and Dale Peacock (members of that CofCs) been present, the recommendation would have been approved for discussions with the OPC. Of course, this might have been defeated on the floor anyway. The Assembly did encourage Sessions and Presbyteries to unite in worship and fellowship with OPC churches. This year, there was no direct action concerning the CRC, but the Assembly reminded the IRC not to invite the EPC to pursue fraternal relations without prior Assembly direction.
The Ridgehaven, IAR, Covenant Seminary, and Covenant College reports were routine. However, on Wednesday, one of the substantive matters came to the floor for the first time. The Ad Interim Committee on Judicial Procedures (AICJP) was appointed in 1993 and hoped to complete its work this year. Upon procedural motion, the Assembly allotted 60 minutes of free debate on the final proposals. Chairman David Coffin reviewed the process and the recommendations, leaving 40 minutes for input from the floor. Approximately 100 commissioners had attended a final seminar on this issue the previous day and made suggestions. Most speakers from the floor advocated the “package” of proposals which contained some compromises from many sectors. In sum, the package was to be voted on as a whole in the presbyteries in 1996-1997. The main features of the proposal were:

To constitute the SJC as a true commission, allowing its decisions to be unreviewed, except in extraordinary cases; thus, the SJC was to issue final rulings.
To allow minority reports to come directly to the GA if and only if one-third of the SJC members voting crafted a minority report within 20 days of the decision.
To have the SJC members take vows, promising to base their decisions solely only on judicial factors in the Record.
To have the SJC ratified as its own Commission by each GA.
To publish a procedural checklist for discipline cases.
To have the Minutes (but not the decisions) of the SJC reviewed by the Assembly’s Committee on Constitutional Business.
To have the Assembly adopt the SJC’s Manual of Operations as part of the Rules of Assembly Operations, thus requiring future amendments to it to receive a super-majority of an Assembly.

After much discussion, RE John White came to the floor and stated his endorsement of the package. Even though initially he had qualms about the process and original recommendations, White noted that he now supported the Committee’s work. In an interesting change from the previous year—when many leaders of the Vision caucus sought to dismiss this committee—when the vote was taken, the 24th GA approved the AICJP’s package by an overwhelming 791-17 vote. It appeared that many had come to support the changes that the AICJP was advocating.
A mere three years ago, a vocal minority sought even to prevent the AICJP from beginning its work. Then as recently as 1995, that same group tried to dismiss the effort entirely. At each juncture, the Assembly itself voted overwhelmingly to retain and support the AICJP–by increasingly large voting margins. The AICJP seemed to be in touch with the Assembly, if not with various caucus groups.
To compare, in the three years since the creation of the AICJP, the SJC saw the following changes:

Each case had to be discussed by the entire plenary of the SJC;
Each case could be amended by the plenary;
Final voting by mail on cases ceased;
The SJC employed a rotating pool on its panel instead of pools picked by the Officers;
The Assembly would review the Minutes of the SJC;
The SJC’s Manual became the property of the Assembly;
The SJC could have a minority report come to the Assembly;
Vows were required for this delicate work.

Most of the PCA believed that numerous and beneficial clarifications had been made to the SJC, which was now more accountable to the Assembly and more open to the plenary membership. The AICJP made a real contribution to the PCA’s life, stability, and peace. Moreover, it was another token of a new generation of leadership. Much of the first-generation leadership had discouraged the AICJP’s recommendations. Still, by the end of this Assembly, the PCA of the 21st century had come to appreciate an improved set of judicial procedures.
Moderator McGowan expressed it well: “I feel as if this is a major, major event in the PCA. I sense that the entire Assembly is impressed that this committee came back with a unanimous recommendation; that could only be the work of the Holy Spirit. We’ve all had to admit that there have been undercurrents in the denomination that trouble us all. You [the committee] have blessed us all.” Kennedy Smartt, who initially opposed the creation of the AICJP, recommended to the Moderator for the Assembly to sing the Doxology, which they did.
The SJC cases this year were fairly non-controversial. All passed with no substantive debate. Few would set grand precedents, but several controversial cases loomed before the SJC in the coming year.
The Assembly was ahead of schedule on Wednesday and recessed for the day before supper. That night, a contemporary worship service was held.
On Thursday morning, the Assembly began to take up another substantive matter. Following the SJC’s Chen case in 1993, many in the Assembly construed that the decision wrongly prohibited a Session from exercising due discipline should the Chen case become a precedent. Thankfully, the 24th General Assembly’s action clarified that the Chen case did not intend to be a precedent that tied a Session’s hands. Over the past two years, numerous declarations, memorials, and overtures had arisen to clarify that a Session could discipline a person who stopped participating in the church if they deemed it appropriate. One group called for a purely “voluntary society,” while the other older view advocated that vows were serious expressions of covenantal obligation.
At the 1995 Assembly, the floor flooded the Assembly with various recommendations. As a result, the 1995 Assembly recommended that each presbytery discuss this matter along with the various proposals during the year and forward overtures as presbyteries saw fit.
By the time of the 1996 Assembly, however, over 15 overtures had been received. All were referred to the Bills and Overtures (B&O) Committee of Commissioners. Their first item to report was a consensus plan, crafted in the main by David Coffin and Jack Williamson. Chairman of B&O, Joseph Pipa, began to present the recommendation of the B&O CofCs. A few commissioners were allowed comments before the Assembly was interrupted by a point of order by RE Tom Leopard from Birmingham. The B&O CofCs had modified the original overtures (as permitted under the RAO and as has been practiced; indeed, it is absurd not to allow such modification), and it was in the process of leading the Assembly toward a consensus. However, Mr. Leopard asked the Moderator to rule this whole matter out of order, seeking to use parliamentary procedure to prevent the Assembly from reaching this salutary and gentlemanly consensus. In past years, the TRs had been accused of resorting to procedural tactics when they did not have a majority of votes; now, it seemed that the Vision members were lately doing the same.
The Moderator referred this to the CCB, who returned with advice to uphold the right of the B&O committee to recommend such modifications as originally proposed. After about a two-hour needless delay, Chairman Pipa resumed his recommendations, and the Assembly overwhelmingly approved the amendment to the BCO recommended to clarify this matter. Once again, a minority had tried to derail the majority’s will, but it was proving more and more difficult for some automatically to uphold their views. The PCA was siding with the future in both major judicial matters–this BCO amendment and the AICJP recommendations. A prime token of such was the speech by Rev. John Wood in favor of the AICJP, noting that the process “was broke and needed fixing.” The previous year, he had attempted to move to dismiss the AICJP with thanks.
The Nominating Committee’s report was made this year with fewer strikes from the floor than in previous years. Two men had been targeted for elimination from the SJC; one survived. Interestingly, one of the Nominating Committee’s candidates for the SJC held off a floor challenge from a candidate who had previously completed a stint as chairman of the AC. In this case, at least, a caucus group’s string of floor challenges was broken. Several non-Vision men were allowed to be elected–perhaps as much as anything demonstrating that the Vision caucus realized that the Assembly was not approving of its wholesale elimination of particular persons or perspectives.
Later, on Thursday evening, another controversial recommendation from a Permanent Committee was substantially modified. The AC had become the “concerned Presbyterians” because various internet ministries and other more traditional leaning publications were racing ahead in providing news services, electronic services, or other publications. Sadly, most other major denominations and nearly all NAPARC denominations had an internet presence, except the PCA. Meanwhile, others had offered to provide the PCA with a range of services—from an automated email directory of Elders to a list of PCA congregations’ home pages and links for PCA members. However, the AC—perhaps because it could not keep up with emerging technologies or because it seemed to imagine that it had some exclusive right to carry out other duties—thought it had to clarify which publications bore the imprimatur of Atlanta and which ones did not. To further complicate the matter, a Session from New York had created the PCA News Service, Inc.–wholly funded and staffed independently and explicitly controlled by that Session. The AC did not care for the name of this publication and sought to force them to change it, claiming that they had a registered trademark for the initials “PCA.”
The AC (which doubles as the Board of Directors) adopted a policy at its March 1996 meeting, seeking to claim the right to grant or prohibit the use of the initials “PCA” (The fully spelled name, “Presbyterian Church in America” could not be registered.) unless they first vouched that the ministry met their criteria as upholding the values of the PCA: “Approval shall not be granted unless the Committee is able to assert sufficient control over the mark’s use to assure the mark is only utilized in a manner consistent with the doctrinal tenets, existing ministries, and policies of the denomination.” Ultimately, this Assembly did not endorse the AC’s role as guarantor of orthodoxy. Furthermore, the unwise policy revealed that the AC did not fully comprehend the intricacies of emerging electronic technologies and copyright issues. Finally, but perhaps most unacceptable was the policy’s McCarthyite portion that asked for other PCA members to report any violations to central headquarters: “Presbyterian Church in America (A Corporation) requires that any incidents of possible trademark infringement be immediately reported to the Administrative Committee at the denominational level.” All along, of course, on any legitimate matter of possible misrepresentation, the AC could have simply asked that such ministry explicitly identify whose authority they were under or could have asked the proper ecclesiastical court to discipline a member if he was bearing false witness, i.e., representing himself as an official PCA agency, when in fact it was not.
Frank Smith, editor of the PC* News Service, Inc. (who contended that even at the Assembly, the AC had never legally completed its application for such a trademark), was pacified when the AC Committee of Commissioners asked the Assembly to request him to change the name of his publication. It might seem petty to some, but he had a meritorious point: Would the Assembly itself control such matters or let an autonomous Board of Directors (B.O.D.) create heavy-handed policies? In this case, the Assembly chose to reserve that right to itself. Thus, they modified the permanent AC’s approach. Moreover, the AC CofCs added language explicitly requiring that the Board of Directors never be allowed to sue a brother without first going through the ecclesiastical courts—an all too clear requirement that biblical process must be followed, not worldly litigation. Why the B.O.D. and the AC had not resorted to this was inexplicable. Interestingly, some of the B.O.D. the previous day had wanted to exclude the provision for ecclesiastical discipline before civil litigation but backed off only after considerable pleading. Finally, after discussing this matter for some time, the Assembly upheld the CofCs’ recommendations.
However, after the matter was completed, former Stated Clerk, Morton Smith rose to make a motion (which once again, Mr. Leopard tried to have ruled out of order; this time, however, the Moderator knew better, ignored the earlier more tenuous parliamentary advice, and permitted a motion). Dr. Smith moved that the B.O.D. formulate specifically what they considered permissible and what was not on this matter, and that such information be sent to every PCA minister and Clerk of Session; thus, the AC’s work would come out into the open and be reviewable the following year. These motions passed unanimously, as it became clear that the Assembly had a mind of its own and would not stand for a highly centralized policy in this matter. The AC now found that it was being directed to do its homework more thoroughly, by communicating its recommendations broadly, and not think that it could act outside the parameters authorized by previous Assemblies. Again, the Assembly was fairly unanimous, even as it corrected a Permanent Committee.
There were other instances of the AC bureaucracy seeming to exceed its mandates. For example, the AC invited itself to consult with the MNA Committee over the spinning off of Reformed University Fellowships as a Permanent Committee, even though no case was ever made that the AC was either essential to this process or that it was to assume a central coordinating role. Moreover, the AC recommended a significant increase in the GA fee, which covered no part of the Commissioner’s food, housing, travel, or rental of the main hall. Just what and how was the AC spending $130.00 per capita when commissioners each paid their expenses, and the host church/Presbytery absorbed many? The AC also reported that it couldn’t find any hotel rooms in the bounds of Potomac Presbytery (a troubler of Israel or Atlanta, at times), which years ago had invited (and been approved to host) the GA in 1999; however, the AC could find rooms in Louisville, where we had a single 86-member church. Still, the AC lamented that about half of the churches would not support their work, not quite pausing to ask: Could the lack of financial support be related to mistrust or disapproval? One prominent Pastor even suggested that the AC be shrunk only to serve as an arrangements committee for GA meetings, similar to its earlier structure.
The Review and Control Committee did a thorough job and rebuked a few presbyteries for not approving their actions related to the doctrine of creation and the ordination of women.
The last day of the General Assembly concerned itself with B&O and answers to Personal Resolutions. Among matters reported out by B&O and approved by the Assembly were the following:

They recommended against deleting the word “control” from the BCO chap. 40;
They politely said “no thanks” to an overture (by referring to another action) from a SC Presbytery, calling for folks to feel free to depart from the PCA if they could not support the “settled” PCA polity reflected in BCO 46-5—which was so settled as to have just been subject to amendment;
They declined to erect a special study committee on Theonomy;
They agreed with an earlier SBC resolution that Disney Corp. should be rebuked for their support of homosexuality;
They anathematized the President’s veto of partial-term abortions;
They condemned arson in church buildings and encouraged presbyteries to support those effected;
They called for a day of prayer and fasting for the 1996 Elections;
They referred back an overture from Philadelphia Presbytery re: women in combat.

When this Assembly adjourned, the church seemed at peace. Indeed, apart from either strong caucus group—the Concerned Presbyterians or the Vision Caucus—the Assembly seemed to do just fine. But, equally, there were no visible signs of support for an earlier “consensus” attempt, nor did the Concerned Presbyterians have a visible thrust. The PCA was growing such that it did not need elitist leadership. In its place was a new spirit of cooperation, trust, and consensus–far better than some earlier attempts that tried to force such.
Several stories would play themselves out in the coming months. It would remain to be seen if the Vision group continued to support the judicial amendments to the BCO in their presbyteries in the coming year; or if they would become frightened. Moreover, a birthday party was planned for 1997-1998. It would also be interesting to see if some people could resist the urge of revisionism. As the PCA reflected on its first 25 years, would some who could not win the day in voting and by BCO amendments seek to read back into PCA history original intents that we never stated, despite clear constitutional language to the contrary? The temptation would be strong for both caucus groups. Honesty might prevail, however, and prevent such hollow claims in light of an explicit constitution.
To conclude, one might compare and contrast the success of the AICJP Ad Interim Committee with the earlier Ad Interim Committee in 1985-1990. The first one barely sold the church on its proposals. The most recent one had succeeded. The first Ad Interim Committee proposed (and had rejected in the presbyteries) the following ideas: to disallow higher courts to act for lower courts, to remove a Presbytery’s power to dissolve churches unless they consent (again, defeated in 1996); to have triennial assemblies; to have a delegated assembly, to change the Nominating Committee; to define “Power” or “authority” in a congregationalist manner; to diminish connectionism; to define power as advisory-alone; to make higher court action contingent upon consent of lower court; to eliminate “control” from Review and Control (again, defeated in 1996); to expand the powers of the AC; to reduce  CofCs to “advisory”; to change the structure of General Assembly reporting, strengthening the Permanent committees; to discourage minority reports; to shorten the length of General Assembly, and others. All these structural changes ultimately failed. The only lasting fixture from the first Ad Interim Committee was the SJC which: (1) was defeated in its initial proposal and only kept alive due to alert parliamentary tactics; and (2) was now seriously altered by the second Ad Interim Committee.
Growth among PCA churches continued at about 3%. Most of the largest churches kept up with the overall denominational growth rate for the first time in a decade. Much of the PCA’s growth was now fueled by newer and smaller churches. During 1995, 20 net new churches were added, with 6,205 new communicants gained. The average growth rate for the past 7 years was 2.8%. The PCA had reached a plateau since 1988 with about 3% annual growth. Compared to the mainline churches’ consistent decline in the same period, this was a good level of growth, although some other groups might grow at larger rates: the OPC at 4.9%, the EPC at 9%, and the Evangelical Free Church at 14%. If the PCA were to attain the goal of 2,000 churches by 2000, the next four years would have to see growth about six times greater than the growth rate for the past five years.
Still needing to be addressed were the following: Several important judicial cases were on the horizon; the church needed more accountability; positive publications were required; and although there was some good news about foreign missions—both in terms of retiring the debt and reports of more theological integrity—still, the excessive overhead promised to be addressed.
The young church seemed amazingly healthy. Ahead, if the church could use the 25th-year birthday party to try to change the future instead of trying to re-envision the past or what might have been, and if presbyters continued to apply themselves in their presbyteries, the church would continue to mature and expand.
David Hall is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Midway PCA in Powder Springs, Ga.
Related Posts:

True biblical renewal and reformation is always based on the word of God. When young Josiah rediscovers the book of the law, it brings about immediate changes: he repents of his sins and leads the people in repenting of their sin, thus beginning his work of renewal and reform. 

We can use a few Josiahs today:
Many of you know about the bright light that was King Josiah of Judah who reigned in a very dark period. His story is worth recounting, since our own days are so very dark, and we can use a bit of encouragement along the way. And given the amazing renewal that occurred through him, we can also pray, ‘Do it again Lord.’
The historical background to his reform work is this. The northern kingdom Israel had already been judged by God for its sins, idolatry and disobedience. The Assyrians captured its capital Samaria in 722 B. C. The rule of Josiah was late in the southern kingdom Judah. It would fall fairly soon in 587/6 B. C. Josiah died around 25 years before that time.
Things had been going downhill real fast in Judah and divine judgement was already promised. The 50 or so year reign of Manasseh and his son Amon was the worst of a bad bunch. So when renewal and reformation occurred under Josiah, it was a case of too little too late for ungodly Judah.
But still, it was an incredible renewal indeed. His story is told in 2 Kings 22-23:30. We read this about him in 2 Kings 22:2: “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right or to the left.”
He had begun his reign as king when he was eight years old. But the main activity found in these chapters happened in the eighteenth year of his reign. You recall the story: he was having the temple repaired when “the Book of the Law” was found (v. 8). This probably refers to the book of Deuteronomy. We read about what happened next in verses 10-13:

Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king. When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”

In chapter 23 we read about how Josiah renewed the covenant. In verse 3 it says this: “And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people joined in the covenant.”
We then read about how he got rid of idolatrous priests, pulled down idols and statues, smashed pagan altars, and celebrated the Passover. Verse 25 says this about Josiah: “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.”
Yes, this was an amazing king during some amazing times. But as mentioned, it was not enough, because Judah was too far gone, and God’s judgment still would be coming, as verses 26-27 declare. Yet this period of renewal was remarkable indeed.
Read More

Because God desires to meet with his people, and because their needs are so very great, he carefully regulates his own worship. In particular, he gives us detailed instructions concerning the attitudes, actions, and procedures that are proper to the gathering of the whole church. We may think of these regulations as borders with which he surrounds, creates, protects, and preserves a sacred space, ensuring that he himself may fully fill that space, and that in it his people may be fully edified and refreshed (Rev. 12:6, 14). He gives us regulations so that he may freely give us himself.

Liturgically speaking, I’ve made the rounds. Down through the years this septuagenarian has worshiped in—or observed the worship of—Pentecostal, Charismatic, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. Also, over the decades during which I served as a pastor I continually mulled the New Testament (NT) parameters for worship on the Lord’s Day, trying hard to discern them accurately and practice them faithfully. Now, as I near the end of my journey, it has seemed good to share my best thoughts on Lord’s Day worship, and to craft a service of worship that I believe would be pleasing to God and edifying to his children.
Theological and Practical Foundations
Here in Part I of the essay I want to share my major premises: the theological and practical foundations upon which I have based my proposed liturgy. There are seven of them.
Lord’s Day Worship is Special
Worship on the Lord’s Day is quite special. Unlike other gatherings of God’s children, on this day the elders and members of a Christian body come together as a whole church (Acts 15:2, 22; 1 Cor. 11:17-18; 14:23, 26; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 10:25; 13:7). Also, the regulations for this assembly are different from—and more stringent than—those pertaining to smaller gatherings (1 Cor. 11:1-15 vs. 11:17-14:40; 1 Tim. 2:1-15).
But the uniqueness of Lord’s Day worship stems above all from its close association with the mystery of the Sabbath. Theological reflection on this subject is extensive, diverse, and sometimes controversial. For brevity sake, I will give my own view simply by citing a Statement of Faith that I wrote some years back:
We believe that the Sabbath Day, which in the beginning God set apart as a day of rest and worship for all mankind, and which at the giving of the Mosaic Law he instituted as a day of rest and worship for his OT people, stood as a type or picture of the eternal rest that he now offers to all men—and commands them to enter—through the gospel. / We believe that Christians do in fact enter this rest, first at the moment of saving faith, then more fully at the entrance of their spirits into heaven, and still more fully at the resurrection of the righteous at Christ’s return. / We believe that in order to underscore the perpetuity of the believer’s rest in Christ, the NT does not, by an ordinance, tie the worship of God to the Sabbath or any special day of the week. / But we also believe that through a holy tradition inaugurated by Christ himself on the day of his resurrection, and perpetuated in the practice of the early church, God’s people are invited and encouraged to designate the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day; that on that day they do well to assemble themselves together in order to celebrate and be refreshed in the spiritual rest God has granted them, through a reverent and joyful observance of the ordinances of NT worship; and that in so doing God will be pleased, Christ exalted, his people blessed, and the world confronted afresh with the good news of the gospel.1
In short, Lord’s Day worship is special because on that day God specially draws near to his people in order to remind them of, teach them about, and refresh them in, their eternal Sabbath rest in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Lord’s Day Worship is Important to God and Man
The worship of the Lord’s Day is important to the triune God. Scripture affirms that he takes great pleasure in his people (Psalm 149:4). Indeed, his people are his chosen dwelling place (1 Ki. 8:10-11; Psalm 132:5-7; Ezek. 43:5; 44:4; John 14:23; Acts 2:2; Rev. 21:3). Therefore, knowing their needs, and not unmindful of his own enjoyment, he delights to draw near to them on the Lord’s Day. In particular, Abba Father delights to gather his children to himself and take them up into his arms (Psalm 50:5, 149:4; Is. 43:2). His exalted Son, their heavenly Husband, delights to speak tenderly to his Bride, and to lay her weary head upon his vast and comforting bosom (Is. 40:1-3; John 13:23, 14:3, 17:24; Eph. 5). And the Holy Spirit, knowing all these things, delights to facilitate the holy visitation: to unveil and strengthen the eternal bond of love that unites the family of God. For these and other reasons, Lord’s Day worship is indeed important to the Three-in-One.
But it is even more important for man. For though God’s people have been justified, they are not yet fully sanctified. Though they are seated in heavenly places in Christ, they are still making an arduous journey through the howling wilderness of this present evil age (Gal. 1:4; Rev. 12:1ff). Therefore, their needs are great. Because they are weary, they need refreshing (Acts 3:19). Because they are pursued and persecuted, they need protection (Rev. 12:13-14). Because they are without (mature) understanding, they need teaching (Eph. 4:91-16). Because they are called, they need equipping (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Because they have faltered, they need exhortation, repentance, and reassurance (1 Cor. 11:27-32; 14:3). Because they are lonely, they need family; because they are lacking, they need the support of the family (Psalm 122; Acts 2:43-5). And because they are grateful and glad, they need a time and a place in which to express their gratitude and joy (1 Pet. 1:8). In sum, the saints are eager for Lord’s Day worship because they know that on that Day—through word, prayer, ordinance, and body ministry—they will yet again behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and so be transformed into his image from one degree of glory to the next (2 Cor. 3:18).
Lord’s Day Worship is Regulated
Because God desires to meet with his people, and because their needs are so very great, he carefully regulates his own worship. In particular, he gives us detailed instructions concerning the attitudes, actions, and procedures that are proper to the gathering of the whole church. We may think of these regulations as borders with which he surrounds, creates, protects, and preserves a sacred space, ensuring that he himself may fully fill that space, and that in it his people may be fully edified and refreshed (Rev. 12:6, 14). He gives us regulations so that he may freely give us himself.
Concerning the attitudes that we are to bring to this gathering, the NT provides rich instruction. We are to come with understanding (Col. 1:9), gratitude (1 Tim. 2:1), joy (Matt. 13:44; Phil. 4:4), reverence (Heb. 12:28), humility (James 1:21), sincerity (Acts 2:46), confidence (Heb. 4:16), faith (James 1:6), and eager expectation (Matt. 18:20). We come in order to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). We come faithfully, in spite of what we’ve done or not done, and in spite of what we feel or don’t feel, always remembering that God is faithful, and that he is eager to meet both us and our needs (1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 10:25). And so, having put on these attitudes, we too come with eagerness, hoping and expecting to experience his glory filling the house (1 Kings 8:11; Ezek. 43:4; Acts 2:2)!
As for the actions of NT worship, they are far fewer than those of OT times, being carefully designed to facilitate the simplicity of worship in spirit and truth instituted by Christ, and now so supernaturally natural to the regenerate hearts of his flock (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 11:3). These actions include prayer; the reading, preaching, teaching, and prophesying of the Word of God; psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, sung with grace in our hearts to the Lord; the Lord’s Supper; and, on occasion, the administration of water baptism.
Again, these actions are regulated: The NT prescribes basic procedures for each one. As the procedures become familiar, the worshiper comes to rest in them, trusting that all things are indeed being done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). Thus resting, he is free to give himself fully to the Lord throughout all the service: to listen for his voice, and to wait for his touch. Regulated worship becomes liturgy, the work of the people; liturgy, in turn, becomes a  garden paradise where the people experience the work of God.
Lord’s Day Worship is Participatory and Charismatic
Speaking personally, I cannot read 1 Corinthians 12-14 and fail to conclude that here the apostle’s primary concern is to regulate the worship of the Lord’s Day. Yes, he begins by laying some theological groundwork, by unveiling the Church as the Spirit-filled Body of Christ, each of whose members is charismatically gifted for the continual edification of the Body. And yes, for this reason some of the gifts mentioned here will not typically operate in a worship service (e.g., helps, mercies, administrations, healings, miracles; cf. Rom. 12:3-8). But surely the main thrust of these chapters is to educate the saints on the gifts of the Spirit with a view to their proper exercise in the gatherings of the whole church (1 Cor. 14:23).
Accordingly, in our thinking about Lord’s Day worship we must take seriously the words of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 14:26: “What then, brothers, is the sum of the matter? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.” In light of this command, I would therefore ask my Reformed brethren: Can a biblically faithful church exclude this text from its understanding of the regulative principles of corporate worship? Does it not clearly tell us that Lord’s Day worship is participatory (i.e. each one has something to contribute, though not necessarily every Sunday) and charismatic (i.e. each one contributes that something in the exercise of his spiritual gift)?
My cessationist brethren will balk at this claim, believing as they do that with the closure of the NT canon, and with the passing of the foundational apostles, God has permanently withdrawn some of the more supernatural gifts. I cannot enter into that debate here. Suffice it to say that for nearly 50 years I have been unable to find a single NT text affirming the withdrawal of any charismatic gift. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 I find quite the opposite, since here the apostle depicts the charismata as essential equipment for the Church Militant as she makes her difficult pilgrimage towards the fullness of her redemption in the age to come.
How so? The key words are “now” and “then”. Now, in the long Era of Gospel Proclamation, the Church needs the gifts of the Spirit in order to fulfill her mission. Now she needs to prophesy, speak in tongues, teach, etc., so that the saints may be gathered in, and the Body built up (1 Cor. 13:8). However, as important as the gifts are, they reflect only a partial knowledge of God, and are therefore only temporary. For when “the perfect” comes—not the close of the NT canon, but the return of Christ, the consummation, and the life of the age to come (1 Cor. 1:7)—then her partial knowledge will fail, cease, and pass away (1 Cor. 13:8-9). Then, having graduated into her eternal adulthood, she will put away her “childish” things—her childish ways of knowing, speaking, and reasoning—for then she will see face-to-face; then she will fully know, just as she is known (1 Cor. 13:11-13). If, then, it is essential for the Church to pass through her spiritual childhood, it is also essential that she permanently possess the distinguishing marks of her spiritual childhood: the panoply of spiritual gifts.
All that said, the closure of the NT canon is indeed of great importance. It enables us to identify the various spiritual gifts, and to exercise them properly in their appropriate settings. With reference to the worship of the Lord’s Day, it enables us to prioritize the ministry of the Word (i.e. Scripture reading, preaching, teaching, prophecy) with a view to the edification of the church (John 17:17; 1 Cor. 14:26). It enables us to judge the doctrinal and ethical integrity of the various ministries of the Word (1 Cor. 14:29). And it enables leaders, through the exercise of their own spiritual gifts, to structure the Lord’s Day worship in such a way as to incorporate all its elements, while at the same time leaving ample room for the move of the Spirit and the spontaneous participation of various members of the congregation.2
Lord’s Day Worship Specially Regulates the Verbal Participation of Women
This brings us to an especially challenging part of our discussion. The NT clearly places certain restrictions on the verbal participation of women in the Lord’s Day gathering of the whole Church. Pressured by the surrounding culture, modern theologians fiercely debate the meaning and application of the relevant texts, with the result that different churches have settled on widely different policies (1 Cor. 14:34-36; 1 Tim. 2:9-15). My own reading, which aligns with traditional Catholic and Protestant interpretations, is that sisters in Christ may freely participate in congregational singing and in the corporate recitation of prayers, Scripture, or creeds (yet another good reason to embrace all these practices). They may not, however, engage in any form of solo speech: They may not teach, preach, prophesy, pray (aloud), speak in tongues, interpret a tongue, read Scripture, ask questions, or make announcements.
It should go without saying that in giving us these guidelines God is in no way denigrating the value, intelligence, or spirituality of his daughters, who, just like men, are created in his own image and likeness, loved, and redeemed in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Nor are the regulations meant to exclude women from all verbal ministry, since a number of other NT texts authorize them to teach, pray, and prophesy in settings other than the gatherings of the whole church (Acts 2:17; 18:26; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; Titus 2:3-5).
Why, then, does God mandate these special restrictions? A close reading of NT teaching on gender relations makes it clear that the rules are designed, above all, to reflect—and to reinforce in the hearts of his people—God’s creation order for the sexes (1 Tim. 2:11-15). By his wise decree—which is meant to image the mystery of Christ and the Church—man is the spiritual “head” of woman: the authority over her (1 Cor. 11:2-16; Eph. 5:22-33). In marriage, in the family, in the church, and indeed in the outer worlds of business and government, God has given to men the responsibility—and with that, the authority—to lead, always with a view to the protection and provision of those under their care.
Accordingly, when a woman speaks out in church she is inverting the creation order by displacing the authorized leader(s) of the meeting, replacing him (them) with herself, and (if only momentarily) setting all the men in attendance under her authority. This problem is especially acute when a woman presumes to teach or prophesy, since the men will feel themselves to be under the authority of God’s Word, but will balk at being under the authority of the woman bringing it. Paul, saturated with divine law and deeply established in biblical sensibilities, startles us moderns by declaring that such an inversion is disgraceful, implying that when the illicit inversion is both performed and permitted ignominy rightly falls on the woman, her husband, the elders, and the men in the church—all of whom have had their part in turning the world upside down (1 Cor. 14:35).
There are practical considerations as well. If a woman happens to misspeak, she will not only dishonor her husband, but also may oblige the elder in charge to correct her in front of her husband and the entire congregation—a needless embarrassment and further inversion that Paul surely wanted to avoid.
It should also be noted from 1 Timothy 2:14 that unless a woman is fully submitted to her husband, she, like mother Eve, is especially vulnerable to deception, and therefore to propagating deception, in the event that she is allowed to speak in church.
Finally, we must honestly admit that a solitary woman speaking in church will necessarily attract attention to herself, which in turn can stimulate sexual thoughts in the men (who are more visually oriented than women), thereby distracting them from the worship of the Lord. This, I think, is why Paul urges the sisters to dress modestly and discreetly when they come to church (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:3-4). The words of the apostle display great practical wisdom, a wisdom that, when applied, will enable us to avoid all sorts of problems, and so to preserve good order and peace in the churches.
I am all too aware that in our day these regulations are highly counter-cultural, and therefore circumvented by theologians and pastors alike. Accordingly, it will take extraordinary wisdom, love, patience, and courage for church leaders to explain and implement them, and for God’s men and women to submit to them. But if they love the Lord, and if they desire the fullest possible manifestation of his presence and power in the worship service, they will do so eagerly and gladly.3
Read More
Related Posts: