Ecclesiastes 4:1 states a very simple truth: “Two are better than one…”
It’s not a new truth; in fact, it’s one of the first things we hear from the Lord in the Bible:
“It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18).
As human beings, we were not meant to live in isolation; we are meant for each other. That “each other” includes all kinds of relationships – marriages, church groups, and just basic friendships included. In all these cases, two are better than one.
While that seems obvious, it’s a truth that needs to be re-embraced today. After all, we live in a culture that has never been more connected and yet never more isolated. We might have hundreds or thousands of virtual connections without any of those connections ever moving into a genuine, deep relationship. Now, more than ever, we need to deeply believe and live out this reality of relationship.
Here, then, are three reasons why two are better than one:
1. Because we have different gifts.
Ecclesiastes 4 continues like this:
Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their labor…
This is, of course true in most any general sense – two people working at the same time are most often going to produce more and better things than just one. But in the church, this truth takes on another meaning.
Read More

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:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Friday, May 3, 2024
The New Testament only grants authority regarding the internal governance of the church to the officers of the church. I think most people who oppose establishment frame their opposition the other way round: they are mostly afraid of Christians imposing their will on the general populace via the state. I am more concerned—from a biblical and theological standpoint—about the state interfering in matters that God has not granted it authority to pronounce upon. I’m aware that the older Protestant view did not give the magistrate carte blanche to interfere in internal church matters. But perhaps it still granted it too much leeway in this direction. Should the U.S. government have the authority to mandate that the Presbyterian Church in America (my denomination) call a second General Assembly every year? The older view allows this. I don’t see God having granted the state that authority.

In my series of articles on Christianity and politics, I have mostly attempted to make my argument from Scripture and natural law. In this entry, I aim to show how the ideas I’ve argued for relate to previous Protestant approaches to politics. I start with John Calvin since he is an important, and representative, voice within the classical Protestant approach. I then turn to some representative Protestant confessional statements of the past, since these (unlike the views of individual theologians, however revered) were actually authoritative for the practice of the churches. Lastly, I look at how classical Protestant political thought was adapted in America, using the American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith as an example.
The Classical Protestant Understanding of Politics
John Calvin (1509-64)
The most foundational element of Calvin’s understanding of politics is his argument (here taken from the Battles translation of Calvin’s Institutes III.19.15) that “there is a twofold government in man.” This twofold government, which is sometimes called the “two kingdoms” is often mistakenly equated with the difference between church and state. The distinction, in fact, is between government that is internal and “spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God” and government that is temporal and “political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men.” Spiritual government “pertains to the life of the soul, while [temporal government] has to do with concerns of the present life” such as “laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately.”
Calvin’s discussion of this twofold government is found in the middle of his treatment of how the conscience of the Christian is absolutely free from any human commandment that is not found in Scripture. A possible, but erroneous, conclusion from this fact might be (as it actually was with the Anabaptists) that Christians are not bound to submit to earthly governments at all. Calvin accepts that the Christian’s conscience is bound only to God’s word in spiritual matters, while simultaneously insisting that obedience to lawful human governments is also mandated by God: “As we have just now pointed out that [temporal] government is distinct from that spiritual and inward kingdom of Christ, so we must know that they are not at variance” (Institutes IV.20.2). That is to say, the inward kingdom of salvation in Christ and the outward kingdoms of earthly governments must be kept distinct, yet should not be understand as at odds. Each is appointed by God; each has its unique vocation in the world: one pertaining to eternal life, the other to earthly life. The latter is not sub-Christian, a “thing polluted” (IV.20.2), simply because it is focused primarily on how to live on this earth. This is an important point for those Christians today who struggle to see that vigorous political action by Christians is not at odds with heavenly-minded piety.
For Calvin, “civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God,” and “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church,” in addition to its non-spiritual purpose “to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us to one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.” Few Christians today would dispute the non-spiritual purposes of government Calvin enumerates, though even fewer would accept the spiritual mandate of civic government “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church.” Be that as it may, Calvin’s view was the norm in Protestant political thought for centuries afterward, so one at least needs to understand it, even if one partially or wholly rejects it. Sound reasons would also have to be provided for this rejection, reasons beyond “it’s scary,” or simply pointing out that it would be a difficult task. I have my own reasons for tweaking the classical view, which I will address below.
The Augsburg Confession (1530)
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession was presented to Emperor Charles V (1500-58) at the imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1530 as a summary of Lutheran beliefs. The Confession’s Article 16 is entitled “On Civil Affairs” and says the following:
Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage. They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians. They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29.
In brief, this article states that just laws must be obeyed and that government is a good and divine institution. Like Calvin, the Confession rejects the Anabaptist notion that submission to God’s kingdom precludes submission to earthly governments. Unlike Calvin, there is no statement of a mandate for the civil magistrate to ensure that true religion prevails in a nation (see also Article 28). It does, however, require that the state practice charity in its ordinances, which at a bare minimum means that the laws of the state are shaped by Christian teaching. That said, the Augsburg Confession appears more concerned with preventing church officers from meddling in civil government than closing off the possibility that the state might have certain responsibilities regarding the promotion of true religion. In general, however, Lutherans did not employ Calvin’s argument in this regard.
The Scots Confession (1560)
In contrast to the Lutherans, all of the key political ideas expressed by Calvin (and other Reformed pastors and theologians) were soon enshrined in major Reformed confessions. The 1560 Scots Confession is a good place to begin, since it was written by followers of Calvin while he was still alive. The Scots Confession was approved by the Scottish Parliament and served as the official doctrinal statement of the Scottish national church. Chapter 24, on the civil magistrate, says the following:
We Confess and acknowledge empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities to be distincted and ordained by God: the powers and authorities in the same (be it of Emperors in their empires, of Kings in their realms, Dukes and Princes in their dominions, or of other Magistrates in free cities), to be God’s holy ordinance, ordained for manifestation of his own glory, and for the singular profit and commodity of mankind. So that whosoever goes about to take away or to confound the whole state of civil policies, now long established, we affirm the same men not only to be enemies to mankind, but also wickedly to fight against God’s expressed will. We further Confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in most reverent estimation; because that they are the lieutenants of God, in whose session God himself doth sit and judge (yea even the Judges and Princes themselves), to whom by God is given the sword, to the praise and defence of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors. Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied. And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme power (doing that thing which appertains to his charge), do resist God’s ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. And further, we affirm, that whosoever deny unto them their aid, counsel, and comfort, while the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travail in the executing of their office, that the same men deny their help, support, and counsel to God, who by the presence of his lieutenant craveth it of them.
There is no material difference between this chapter and Calvin’s teaching on the magistrate. It can be summed up like this: distinct nations are ordained by God, as are their civil rulers; these rulers are meant to rule for God’s glory and the good of their people; to unlawfully resist their lawful rule is to resist God; such rulers are tasked, as per Romans 13:1–7, with “the praise and defense of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors;” they are also given responsibility “for maintenance of the true Religion.”
The Belgic Confession (1562)
The Belgic Confession was written in the early 1560s for the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, eventually becoming the official doctrinal statement of those churches. The original form of Article 36 (“Of Magistrates”) reads as follows:
We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.
Summarized, this article states that the civil magistrate is a legitimate, divine authority and that it must enforce just laws so as to facilitate a just and well-ordered society. On the role of the magistrate regarding true religion the Belgic Confession is somewhat more specific and detailed than the Scots Confession. Among the magistrate’s responsibilities is to protect the free exercise of the church’s ministry, remove idolatry from the church, and ensure that the gospel is preached faithfully and that faithful worship takes place.
Read More
Related Posts: