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:

According to Warfield, the church did not create a new canon alongside the old by determining what ought to be included in it (or not). Rather, the church recognized the books of our present New Testament as they were given, and therefore added them to the existing books of the Old Testament canon. These books came from the apostolic circle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore already possessed full authority as the word of God independently of the church’s recognition of them.

B. B. Warfield’s magisterial essay “The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament” was published in 1892. You can find the essay here. It has also been included in the various editions of Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
Here a few gems from that essay.
Warfield reminds us that the apostolic church did not “invent” the idea of a canon of New Testament books. The church possessed a canon of inspired and authoritative books from the very beginning–the Old Testament. The church was, therefore, never without a “canon.”

In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “canon” — or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible” — that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the “Canon of the Old Testament.” The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.”

Through the revelation of the gospel preached by the apostles, Warfield notes that the Holy Spirit added to the existing Old Testament canon during the apostolic age. During this period of its development, the church did not possess a “closed canon,” but “an increasing canon.”
Read More
Related Posts:

The major theme in these five chapters, which can be observed by the sheer force of repetition. In 35:1, Moses said, These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do. In 35:4, he says, This is the thing that the LORD has commanded, and in 35:10, let every skillful craftsman among you come and make all that the LORD has commanded. In 35:29, the men and women bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded. In 36:1, Bezalel and Oholiab are given skill to work in accordance with all that the LORD has commanded. Then in chapter 39, after each item of the priestly garments is made, we are told that it was as the LORD commanded (vv. 1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31). 

When reading through the book of Exodus, most find the second half much less exciting than the first half because of laws and because of these chapters and the previous chapters that they mirror, 25-31. Yet the structure of Exodus wants us to see that this what all the marvelous works that God did to bring Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness has been building toward. Yahweh redeemed His people from their slavery in Egypt so that they could know Him and be His covenantal people.
The tabernacle was the physical expression of that covenant. The LORD appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at certain moments throughout their lives, but He would now dwell in the midst of their descendants. Indeed, the tabernacle is also called the tent of meeting because it marked the place where Israel would always be able to meet with God. If they desired to seek Him, they knew that He would be found at the tabernacle.
The importance of the tabernacle explains why even more space is devoted to it in these chapters. The previous three chapters have recounted Israel’s breaking of the covenant through their worshiping of the golden calf, Moses’ continual intercession for them before the face of Yahweh, and the LORD’s pardoning of their sin. Now with the covenant reestablished, Israel is commanded to build the tabernacle according to the designs that Moses was given upon the mountain. Although the text before us is large, there are two large points that we will observe in them: first, the great giving of all Israel toward building the tabernacle and second, the obedience of the people in building the various elements of the tabernacle exactly as Yahweh commanded.
Sufficient to do all the Work
Chapter 35 begins with one final command for Israel to keep the Sabbath. While these verses again feature some unique wording, they appear to be rather out of place in relation to the remainder of the text. Yet I believe that the reason for placing this command at the beginning of the building of the tabernacle is similar to the reason for commanding the Sabbath to be observed at the end of the instructions for the tabernacle. Although Israel was about to begin one of the most important building projects in all of history, the LORD is preemptively reminding them that it was no excuse for breaking the Sabbath. As glorious as the work on the tabernacle was, whoever does any work on [the Sabbath] shall be put to death. Douglas Stuart gives a great explanation for why the Sabbath was so important:
In a certain sense Israel’s formal starting point for keeping Yahweh’s covenant was keeping the Sabbath, that is, the fourth word/commandment, not because doing so was more important than fulfilling the first three words/commandments but because obedience to the Sabbath requirement was the most obviously measurable of them—either in the keeping or in the disobeying. By the fact that he kept (or did not keep) the Sabbath each week, an Israelite showed without ambiguity whether or not he was committed to keep the covenant. Merely keeping the Sabbath did not confer righteousness if other commandments were violated, but it was an openly visible essential—a sine qua non—of covenant loyalty. Not to keep it would be to say publicly to the world “I am not in covenant relationship with the Lord of the Sabbath.” (748)
In verses 4-9, Moses again speaks to the entire congregation of Israel and commands them to make their contribution for the building of the tabernacle. They were to bring gold, silver, bronze, blue and purple and scarlet yarns and linen, goats’ hair, tanned rams’ skins, goatskins, acacia wood, lamp oil, spices, and gems. These were the materials that would be used to build the tent of meeting. As we noted when Moses first received this command upon Sinai, this nation of former slaves was able to offer such valuable materials because the LORD caused them to plunder the Egyptians as they left.
But lest we think that the LORD gave Israel their treasures simply for the purpose of using them for the tabernacle, notice the emphasis on how the contribution was to be given in verse 5: whoever is of a generous heart. In other words, there was no particular demand made to anyone. Giving was commanded generally to the entire nation, but the particulars of gifts were left to the conscience of each individual. God enriched Israel out of His love for His people and to further humble the Egyptians, and those gifts were really given. The Israelites could have refused to make their contributions, foolish as that decision would have been. Of course, there is a sense in which all that we have properly belongs to God, meaning that we are stewards of our possessions rather than owners. Yet that reality should be balanced with God’s gracious giving of gifts, particularly to His people but even upon the wicked as well. Indeed, the fact that the contributions will be stopped in 36:6-7 shows that God had no intention of taking all of Israel’s riches for use in the tabernacle.
Verses 20-29 then show all the people doing what Yahweh commanded of them.
Then all the congregation of the people of Israel departed from the presence of Moses. And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him, and brought the LORD’s contribution to be used for the tent of meeting, and for all its service, and for the holy garments. So they came, both men and women. All who were of a willing heart brought brooches and earrings and signet rings and armlets, all sorts of gold objects, every man dedicating an offering of gold to the LORD. And every one who possessed blue or purple or scarlet yarns or fine linen or goats’ hair or tanned rams’ skins or goatskins brought them. Everyone who could make a contribution of silver or bronze brought it as the LORD’s contribution. And every one who possessed acacia wood of any use in the work brought it. And every skillful woman spun with her hands, and they all brought what they had spun in blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen. All the women whose hearts stirred them to use their skill spun the goats’ hair. And the leaders brought onyx stones and stones to be set, for the ephod and for the breastpiece, and spices and oil for the light, and for the anointing oil, and for the fragrant incense. All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD.
Again, notice the great emphasis upon everyone who heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him, as well as all who were of a willing heart. This is, of course, the pattern for Christian that we are under today. Although giving a tenth of one’s income (a tithe) is generally a fine enough principle, the New Testament does not give us a particular amount or percentage or even formula for governing our giving. Instead, 2 Corinthians 9:7 tells us plainly: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” That is the principle that must rule over our hearts.
We should also take that all of Israel participated in these contributions. The leaders who possessed gemstones and spices brought them freely. Both men and women are emphasized as giving, and the text specifically spotlights skillful women bringing their weavings. Whenever we couple this with the call for all skillful craftsmen in verse 10, we find a beautiful picture of how Yahweh used the various gifts and skills of His people to build His dwelling place.
Read More
Related Posts: