Another critical issue was related to the use of the term “pastor” as being reserved for ordained teaching elders.  It seems that the modern evangelical church tends to label everyone contributing service to the Lord’s work as pastor.  From nonordained youth “pastors” to nonordained music “pastors,” it has become a very generic term.  This has contributed to much confusion in the wider church.

On my Facebook page I recently referred to the 50th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) as a silent coup d’état. I realize that for some folks this language would be considered too strong, but I believe it is fitting.  As a commissioner this year to the GA in Memphis, and as a founding father who attended the original GA in 1973, I believe the use of this term is appropriate.
Because of a lack of better terms in defining opposing parties in the PCA, in this brief article, I will use the political terms of conservative (confessionalist) and progressive.  In short, almost every vote at the GA this year was won by the conservatives, and that by a large margin. That is one reason for the use of my strong term.  It seems like for years now, we have been losing, but things dramatically changed this year.
For example, progressive churches are always pushing the envelope and trying to put women in the pulpit. Such was the case recently when a woman ascended to the pulpit in a worship service at a church in Metro New York Presbytery.  It was called a Bible Study and not a sermon, even though it was a worship service with the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper being celebrated at the end of the service.
The Assembly voted overwhelmingly to send this matter to the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) to hold this Church and this Presbytery accountable for their actions.  This now will become a test case for the SJC.  Hopefully, they will hold the line on women preaching in our pulpits.
The Side B homosexuality issue was handled by a proposed new change to the Book of Church Order.  This again will require a two-thirds majority approval by presbyteries, and the approval at the next General Assembly meeting in Richmond, Virginia.
Although this new language of the proposed amendment to the BCO says that an officer “should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his description of himself, and in his convictions, character, and conduct,” in my opinion, there is too much wiggle room here.  In my view, the words are too generic, and not direct enough.  But then at the same time, ultimately, the whole issue depends on the integrity of the elders in the PCA, and not on the language itself.  Hopefully, integrity will win out here.  Even though Greg Johnson has left the PCA, we need to be ever diligent on this issue. I never heard one reference at this Assembly to same-sex attraction or to celibacy, and this was a blessing.
The Assembly adopted the recommendation that the PCA Stated Clerk send a letter to the President of the United States, and to other civil magistrates (including letters from presbytery clerks to governors) protesting the surgical mutilation of children in what has become described as gender-affirming care. Somewhat contrary to the PCA’s own doctrine of the spirituality of the church, I was glad to see the Assembly do this with an overwhelming vote. The political/spiritual divide has hampered the Church since the Civil War, but boldness on major political issues is the need of the day.  Church leaders can no longer close themselves off in a monastic life and avoid the cultural issues facing us in this nation.  One commissioner, from Canada I assume, requested that the letter be sent to the political leaders of Canada also. I believe a Canadian presbytery could do this. This would include a letter to Justin Trudeau. This would take a lot of courage.
The Assembly chose to leave unchanged the BCO which takes the position that atheists cannot give testimony in church court proceedings.  Progressives thought that this might hamper the whole truth being presented at church trials.  Their appeal was that those involved in abuse trials might not get a fair hearing.  They appeared to argue that somehow the present limit in the BCO is unloving because it would exclude an expert witness who is an atheist.  Substitute oaths to objects not of the “god category” could be used in oath-taking.  The Assembly did not buy into this argument, and left the BCO as it presently reads.
Another critical issue was related to the use of the term “pastor” as being reserved for ordained teaching elders.  It seems that the modern evangelical church tends to label everyone contributing service to the Lord’s work as pastor.  From nonordained youth “pastors” to nonordained music “pastors,” it has become a very generic term.  This has contributed to much confusion in the wider church including the Southern Baptist Convention.  The Assembly voted to place in the Book of Church Order a restriction that the term elder/pastor and deacon should only be used only of ordained officers in the PCA.
I consider all these votes as victories for the conservatives in the PCA.  We have seen the reversal of a long period of control by progressives.  Let me conclude this article by stating my perspective as to why this is happening.

We all hold in high-esteem the founding fathers of the PCA. Few people realize the godliness and the courage that motivated these men.  I have plenty of stories of persecution and suffering that many of them had to endure, even before the PCA was organized.  However, a number of these men were active participants in the National Partnership organization that tried to control the direction of the PCA for years.  A new generation has arisen and now the General Assembly controls the Church and not a secret minority in high positions.  There is a new day in the PCA.
I think the Church has been recaptured because of the increased involvement by Ruling Elders (RE). REs tend to be more conservative, and therefore the progressives are no long in control of the votes at the Assembly.  I think the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN), although keeping a distance from church politics, still has had a good influence on the PCA.  As a theonomist, I get frustrated with them, but I hold them in high regard with love and respect.
The PCA is still inundated by woke theology, but as the woke movement, which was originally a race issue, has been hijacked by transgenderism and drag queens, the woke movement is losing respect in the church, as well as in our nation. I think as the movement grows and as the plea for toleration becomes the threat of domination, churchmen may reconsider their support because, frankly, the entire woke movement has become an embarrassment and a threat to our national sanity. It is committing suicide. One overture this year asking for the Assembly to make a statement on Critical Race Theory was not adopted.  I think this is probably best because there is too much division in the PCA over the issue, and I think we need to wait and let wokeness kill itself.
Lastly, I only wish that those conservative men who have left the PCA would have remained with us. If they had remained, we would have been an even stronger confessional church today. In good conscience they believed they had to leave, but for those of us who stayed, the 50th Jubilee General Assembly was a happy week.  We have been patient, prayed, and fought hard.  God is blessings our efforts, and after a several years of grief, I am happy that I stayed in the PCA.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Written by R.C. Sproul |
Wednesday, November 16, 2022
When the church is paganized there is no need for walls or gates in the city of God. Then the church doesn’t need to worry about singing the Lord’s song—it can sing the songs of the pagan culture because there is no longer a strange and foreign land.

In exile the people of Israel faced the question: “How do you sing the Lord’s song in a strange and foreign land?” The question is similar to that faced by contemporary American Christians. Ours is a spiritual exile as we confront a culture and government increasingly hostile to Christianity.
We look to Nehemiah for clues to guide our own pilgrimage in difficult times. Nehemiah was grief-stricken by the news of the condition of Jerusalem. The walls were broken down and its gates burned with fire. His first emotion over the sad loss of his heritage was grief. It was not bitterness or anger. Nehemiah wept and mourned as Jesus would later weep over the same city.
In his grief, Nehemiah moved to the next step, prayer and fasting. His prayer was first of all a prayer of adoration for the majestic awe of God and for His faithfulness to His people: “O great and awesome God, You who keep Your covenant and mercy with those who love You and observe Your commandments.”
Even in exile, Nehemiah praised God for His covenant faithfulness. Then the focus of his prayer turned to repentance, pleading with God to forgive the sins of his own people, acknowledging that they had brought exile upon themselves.
Nehemiah was a cup-bearer to the king. He served in a pagan government as a believer in God. His vocation was that of a servant. He was humble and respectful to the king, but proper fear of his king did not stop him from acting to save his people. He prayed to God and made a request of the king, asking for permission to go to Jerusalem to rebuild it. He also asked for letters that he might present to lesser governors for safe conduct and even a grant for building materials.
Not all the pagan governors were sanguine toward Nehemiah and his plans. Indeed, some were fiercely resistant to them. When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard of it, they were deeply disturbed that a man had come to seek the well-being of the children of Israel (Neh. 2:10). But there is nothing unusual about this as it is a common pagan reaction to the mission of the church in any age.
When Nehemiah set about the task of rebuilding his enemies laughed at him and despised him. Nehemiah, though, did not let his critics determine his agenda. He was polite but firm in his response to them.
When Nehemiah’s pagan enemies received word that he had rebuilt the walls (but the doors were not yet hung on the gates), they invited him to meet with them in a special “audience.” Nehemiah had no time for this sort of thing, knowing the plans of the enemy were evil. He replied to Sanballat and his cronies, “Why should the work cease while I leave it and go down to you?” Sanballat then sent an open letter accusing Nehemiah of a seditious attempt to become a king and other false charges. Nehemiah sent back a message denying the allegations, noting that the charges were but a thinly veiled form of intimidation.
Read More
Related Posts:

Do not the vows taken by elders regarding the constitution of the PCA and submission to brethren require that we (all of us) follow and abide by the polity of our church (in letter and spirit) until such time as that polity is changed through orderly constitutional process rather than by the drip-drip normalization-by-tolerated-violation approach of ecclesial antinomians—no matter how winsome and missional they be?

The fact that a significant number (likely hundreds) of Presbyterian Church in America congregations “have” female deacons or deaconesses or present females as holding the office of deacon or the imaginary office of deaconess is indisputable.* Also beyond question is the fact that a number of PCA churches do not ordain male deacons (presumably to create a unisex, egalitarian board of deaconing persons) is also beyond dispute.
Questions for PCA officers:
1. Has anyone considered the incremental-but-inevitable effect of allowing quasi-/non-ordained “officers” in a denomination?
2. How many members of PCA churches with female “deacons” or deaconesses (a term with no set meaning in our polity) know that the female deaconing persons are not actually officers? If members are confused it may be because some churches use the same nomination, training, and election processes for females who are called deacons or deaconesses as they do for men who are part of the diaconate.
3. What is the long-term effect of allowing churches to forego the ordination of one of the two offices our polity requires?
4. Have the de facto three-office/three-office-attracted pastors considered the effect that their position may have on our supposed firewall against ordaining female elders (of one kind or another)? In other words, will we move from “women can never be elders” to “women can never be preaching (or senior) pastors.”
Read More
Related Posts: