Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, running down on the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes! It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion! For there the LORD has commanded the blessing, life forevermore. – Psalm 133

Introduction

I love going to General Assembly. It’s always fun to see guys I know from seminary (who I get to see exactly once a year at GA). It’s great to participate in the worship services and sing Psalms and hymns throughout the Assembly. I love hearing the wisdom of my fathers and brothers on the floor of the Assembly. I love learning about what God is doing throughout the world as I visit booths in the Exhibition Hall. In so many ways, General Assembly is an opportunity to see the fulfillment of Christ’s prayer in the upper room when he asked the Father, “that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”

Yet this desire on the part of our Savior is not yet fully realized. I don’t think it ever will be until he returns. Just as the individual believer is in the process of progressive sanctification (each day dying more to sin, yet never being free of it on this side of heaven), so the church is ever in a process of becoming more and more united around the truth. We want that perfect unity that Christ prayed for. It would be easy to get a superficial form of unity, but we want unity around the truth. After all, in the same prayer wherein Christ asked the Father to give us unity, he likewise prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” The 51st General Assembly was a time of striving for unity, for charity, but ultimately, we pray, a time of striving to be faithful to the truth.

Fun Stuff

Every Assembly has a fair amount of what you might call “fun stuff,” times when the commissioners to the Assembly make it clear that they actually do enjoy being there. The standard greeting when addressing the Assembly is “fathers and brothers.” Well, fathers and brothers laugh, cut up, tease each other, etc. It’s good to have moments where we all show that we like each other. When especially heated moments come up, the moments of levity remind us that we’re all fathers and brothers.

This year’s moderator was Ruling Elder Steve Dowling. RE Dowling was last year’s Overtures Committee chairman (probably the most “important” committee each year at the Assembly), and the entire Assembly remembered the masterful job he did as chairman of that committee. Ruling Elder Mel Duncan reminded us of RE Dowling’s faith in Christ, his love of his family (he and his wife have 9 children and 18 grandchildren), his honorable service to his country in the Marine Corps, and his qualification as a churchman to moderate the Assembly. After a speech like that there was no need for a second nomination. RE Dowling was elected by acclamation, and he did a fantastic job. We should all thank God that he has raised up faithful ruling elders like Steve Dowling for the Presbyterian Church in America.

After assuming the chair, RE Dowling felt the need to test out a mute switch on the podium microphone. This would allow him to confer with the Stated Clerk on a parliamentary question without being heard by the entire Assembly. Since our previous moderator had mistakenly done this last year (without using the mute switch), the moderator named it, “The Fred Switch,” after TE Fred Greco who moderated last year. Well, fast forward to the final day of the Assembly. Everyone is tired and ready to go home when there’s a procedural motion on the floor. Not wanting to do the wrong thing, the moderator turns to the Stated Clerk and says, “Alright, I don’t wanna mess this up twice.” The Fred Switch was not engaged…

I appreciate moments like that. It lightens the mood. It reminds us that men for whom we have great respect are still human. It just lets us laugh in the midst of a week that’s a firehose of polity. Whether it’s when the moderator (retired Marine) and a speaker on the floor (retired Air Force) are teasing each other about their respective branches, or a committee chairman responding to the moderator asking him to inform the Assembly “where we are,” by saying, “Mr. Moderator, we are in Richmond, Virginia,” no matter what the moment of levity, I appreciate them all. For all you future commissioners out there, go and do likewise.

Down to Business

But it wasn’t all “fun stuff.” We did have work to do. The first order of business at every Assembly is to hold a final vote on amendments to the Book of Church Order. These amendments passed the Assembly last year, and were approved by (at least) two thirds of the Presbyteries (so, of the 88 Presbyteries in the PCA, 59 had to approve them). Having accomplished this, the last step before they could go into effect was a final vote of the Assembly. Normally these votes are rather perfunctory. There was debate at the Assembly last year. Each presbytery had the opportunity to debate these measures in depth as well. Once a BCO amendment has survived that much scrutiny, it passes…usually.

This year there was one item that sparked the most debate I’ve ever seen during one of these votes. Item 1 sought to amend BCO 7-3 by adding one sentence.

7-3. No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority therein, or receive official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scripture. Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles of, the ordained offices of pastor/elder, or deacon.

This amendment is simple and straightforward. Don’t call someone a pastor unless he’s an ordained Teaching Elder. Don’t refer to someone as an elder of the church unless he’s been ordained as a Ruling Elder. Don’t call someone a deacon unless he has been ordained as a deacon. While this seems simple to the point of being obvious, there were two objections raised, one with which I sympathized, and one with which I did not.

The Korean Objection

The first objection I’ll address is the one brought by our Korean brothers. Of the fourteen Presbyteries who voted against this amendment, five were Korean Presbyteries. While three Korean Presbyteries did vote in favor of this amendment (by considerable margins, I might add), it is clear that the majority of Korean Presbyteries did not want this amendment to pass. The reason for this given on the floor was rooted in Korean culture. In Korean culture it is customary to address a man who is older than you by calling him “elder” in Korean. In the same way, all Christians will be addressed with the Korean word for “deacon” to show that we should all be servants (the meaning of that word) of Christ.

So, at first glance, this overture would seem to place an unnecessary burden on the backs of our Korean brothers and sisters. They now must change their entire cultural practice simply because we couldn’t be bothered to take them into consideration when we voted on this. There was even a protest submitted arguing to this effect. I understand this concern. I sympathize with this concern. I was not, however, ultimately persuaded by it. To explain why, I’ll borrow the wisdom of my wife. When I explained this to her, she rightly pointed out that we don’t simply want to police certain sounds that come out of people’s mouths, but rather the intention behind them.

Different cultures show respect in different ways. My in-laws think it’s quite strange that I refer to everyone as “sir” or “ma’am.” They don’t get it because they weren’t raised in the South. Here, you refer to everyone as “sir,” even if it’s a young child. It’s a sign of respect and common courtesy, and just because I call someone “sir” does not mean I’m saying he’s been knighted by the King of England. I don’t think there should be any problem with the practice of our Korean brothers, provided they remain true to the spirit of the amendment. Only ordained people should be given the titles of ordained office. If it’s abundantly clear from the cultural context that you’re not talking about ordained office, there shouldn’t be any problem.

The Other Objection

There was, however, another objection raised to this amendment. Many men stood up and said that their churches believed that women should be qualified for the office of deacon, yet because the PCA doesn’t allow the ordination of women deacons, these churches have, for years, and by their own admission on the floor of the Assembly, simply not ordained their deacons. They’ve nominated men and women as deacons. They’ve trained men and women as deacons. And they’ve commissioned, rather than ordain, men and women as deacons.

Now, let me be clear, the Reformed tradition is not unanimous on the question of whether women should be admitted to the office of deacon. Just to list some examples of confessional Reformed denominations in North America today, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and L’eglise Réformée du Québec, are all solidly Reformed, and they all have women deacons (though, in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that the Reformed Church of Quebec only has five congregations, mais je vous aime encore mes amis!). There are differences in the wider Reformed world on this question, but the constitution of the PCA has always been clear. BCO 7-2 already stated, “The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons…In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.”

While other faithful denominations may hold a different position than that of the PCA, our constitution has always been clear. The BCO restricts the office of deacon to qualified men. Officers in the church are not even allowed to be granted exceptions to the BCO, as they are with the confession and catechisms. You must agree with, and conform to, the statements of the BCO. Yet there were men who stood up and objected to the amendment to BCO 7-3 on the basis that their church had not been ordaining any deacons at all. They’d been commissioning their deacons so that they could have women who are deacons.

This has always been in clear violation of the BCO. BCO 17-1 states, “Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.” Therefore, congregations who seek to appoint women to the office of deacon should overture the General Assembly to amend the constitution to allow the ordination of women to that office. This is why I was unpersuaded by this objection. The courts of the church (of which the Session is the lowest court) must be in conformity to our constitution. The Assembly as a whole was not persuaded by either of these objections, and this amendment (along with two others) were passed and went into effect.

Review of Presbytery Records

Each court of the church must submit its minutes to the next highest court for what’s called “review and control.” This allows the higher court to exercise oversight over the lower court and make sure the lower court is acting within the bounds of our constitution. Our Session, for example, must submit all our minutes once a year to the Tennessee Valley Presbytery’s committee for Review of Session Records. At the General Assembly, Presbyteries must likewise submit their minutes for review and control.

There are several options available to the committee when reviewing the minutes of the lower court. The committee can recommend approving the minutes “without exception.” This means “you did a great job. Everything looks in order. See you next year.” Then, the committee can recommend that the minutes be approved, but with “exceptions of form.” This basically means that the lower court did not record everything in the way they’re supposed to, and so the Assembly simply notes that and tells them to do better next time. Then there are what are called “exceptions of substance.” This isn’t simply a clerical error, but rather a record of an action that would seem to violate either the Scriptures or the constitution of the church. If this happens, the lower court is given the opportunity to respond to the exception, and next year’s Assembly will decide if the response is adequate or not.

Finally, there’s what’s called a BCO 40-5 citation. BCO 40-5 states, “When any court having appellate jurisdiction shall receive a credible report with respect to the court next below of any important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings of such court, the first step shall be to cite the court alleged to have offended to appear before the court having appellate jurisdiction, or its commission, by representative or in writing, at a specified time and place, and to show what the lower court has done or failed to do in the case in question.” Four presbyteries were cited to appear before the Assembly’s Standing Judicial Commission. Two of these citations were for unsatisfactory responses to exceptions of substance, but the other two were a bit more complicated.

Metro New York

Last year, Metro New York Presbytery was cited to appear before the Standing Judicial Commission to answer for why it had allowed a congregation to have a woman give a “message” during a Sunday morning worship service. The SJC had found that Metro New York erred and asked the presbytery to dispense with the matter in a constitutional manner. When RPR reviewed Metro New York’s minutes, they found that the presbytery had accepted a response from the Session of the church in question which stated, “When the Senior Pastor informed the Session that he intended to invite a woman as a guest to deliver a ‘message’ on Reformation Sunday, he advised the Session of his understanding at that time that such an invitation would not conflict with the BCO because the BCO had been interpreted to mean that the regular preaching of the Word needed to be done by ordained ministers and did not prohibit non-ordained men and women from occasionally giving a ‘message’ in PCA churches.”

The committee found this response, rather than concluding the matter, to be an admission of a “serious theological error” on the part of the Senior Pastor. The committee stated, “Having received this confession, which unquestionably raised a strong presumption of guilt, the Presbytery had a duty to institute process.” Since Metro New York has not done so, as required by BCO 31-2, they were cited to appear before the Standing Judicial Commission. This is a good thing. This means our denomination values the preaching of the Word. We are a Word and Sacrament denomination, and how a Session administers the means of grace matters deeply to us. I pray this matter is resolved quickly for the glory of God, the peace and purity of the church, and the keeping and reclaiming of sinners.

Columbus Metro Presbytery

There’s a very important principle in our constitution: the congregation controls its own assets. BCO 25-9 states, “All particular churches shall be entitled to hold, own and enjoy their own local properties, without any right of reversion whatsoever to any Presbytery, General Assembly or any other courts hereafter created.” Likewise, BCO 25-10 states, “The provisions of this BCO 25 are to be construed as a solemn covenant whereby the Church as a whole promises never to attempt to secure possession of the property of any congregation against its will, whether or not such congregation remains within or chooses to withdraw from this body. All officers and courts of the Church are hereby prohibited from making any such attempt.”

The minutes of Columbus Metro were examined especially closely because the Assembly received a letter reporting that the Presbytery had violated these provisions of the BCO with respect to a congregation it dissolved last year. One speaker attempted to explain this situation on the floor of the Assembly, but, as another speaker noted, the facts he stated were not in the record. What the record shows is that the Presbytery closed the church and seized its assets, which is something the constitution prohibits. We should all be thankful that higher courts are not permitted to do this, and I hope this matter is resolved quickly as well. It is always good when our constitution is followed.

Overtures

Every year, the most “action” in the Assembly takes place during the Overtures Committee report. That’s because almost any concrete action the assembly takes in response to requests by the lower courts of the church must go through this committee. We even amended our Rules of Assembly Operations this year to make this even more explicit. Any overture that seeks to either amend the constitution of the church, or the Rules of Assembly Operations, must be sent to the Overtures Committee. Other committees may advise the Overtures Committee, but only this committee may bring a recommendation to the Assembly.

Every year there are overtures on which we all agree. Those overtures pass easily through what’s called an “in-gross motion.” Of the thirty-three overtures submitted to the Assembly, all but six of them were answered in this way. The remaining six, however, sparked some debate. Nothing got too heated. Everyone remained in good spirits the whole time. It is worth noting, though, some of the overtures we debated.

Background Checks

Overture 17 from Ohio Presbytery asked the General Assembly to amend our BCO in order to require Sessions and Presbyteries to administer background checks for any candidate for Teaching Elder or Ruling Elder. Every time a man seeks a call to ministry, and every time a man is nominated to the Session of a local church, there is an examination process. Part of this process will deal with his beliefs, his theology, etc., but equally important is the examination into his Christian character. This overture sought to require the lower courts to include a background check in this examination process.

Let me say that I agree with the spirit of this overture. In fact, we require background checks at Trinity for any person who may work with children. In our day, this is simply what we must do in order to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. There are bad actors out there, and those bad actors want access to our churches. It doesn’t matter how big your church is, or how small your church is, evil people will try to get in the door, and requiring background checks is one way to discourage them from doing so. That’s why Tennessee Valley Presbytery likewise already requires background checks for any candidate for the ministry and any minister transferring to TVP from another presbytery. This is good. This is wise. This is what we should do.

Yet this overture was amended in order to encourage background checks rather than requiring them. Why? Is this because the PCA doesn’t think our children should be protected? No. Is it even because the PCA doesn’t think background checks are a necessary step in the world today in order to make sure we’re protecting our children? No. The Assembly chose to encourage, rather than require, background checks for two reasons.

First, different states have different laws surrounding background checks. The laws in California are different from the laws in Tennessee, which are different from the laws in Oklahoma, which are different from the laws in North Carolina, and so on. If the Assembly mandated background check policies for every Session and every Presbytery we would risk running afoul of these state laws. Local Sessions and Presbyteries are best equipped to construct these policies because these lower courts will be best attuned to the specific requirements for their specific areas.

Second, remember earlier when I said that the higher court cannot seize the assets of the lower court? That principle doesn’t just apply to the outright seizure of assets, it also applies to how the lower court uses those assets. BCO 25-8 states, “The superior courts of the Church may receive monies or properties from a local church only by free and voluntary action of the latter.” The higher court may not tell the lower court how to spend its money. So, do background checks require spending money? Yes they do. Therefore the lower courts of the church must procure them voluntarily, because they have chosen to do so. The Assembly can’t require them. We did, however, encourage all Sessions and Presbyteries to obtain them. It’s what wisdom requires.

Constitutional Preaching

What on earth is “constitutional preaching”? Well, to explain Overture 3 from Pee Dee Presbytery, I’ll need to explain a little bit about the history of the PCA. When the PCA was formed in 1973, the constitution of the church was established as including the Westminster Confession, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Form of Government in the Book of Church Order, and the Rules of Discipline in the Book of Church Order. The BCO also includes a Directory for the Worship of God, but this directory is an advisory document. It doesn’t have constitutional authority. Chapters 56-58 are constitutional, as they address the administration of the sacraments, and 59-3, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, is also constitutional. The rest of the Directory for Worship, however, is not.

In not having a constitutional directory of worship, the PCA is an outlier, both in the history of Presbyterianism and in the Reformed world today. To take only the current landscape, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and the United Reformed Churches in North America all either have constitutional directories of worship, or have statements in their constitution directing how worship is to be conducted (the URCNA doesn’t have a “directory,” but their church order still orders their worship). The PCA is the denomination outside the mainstream on this issue. I have written elsewhere arguing briefly that we should have one, and I plan to write more extensively in the future on this subject.

Overture 3 did not seek to give us what I believe we should have. Rather, it simply sought to give constitutional status to one chapter in the Directory for Worship, chapter 53, The Preaching of the Word, with the addition of the words, “a qualified man” at several points in the chapter. Pee Dee Presbytery sought to do this for at least two reasons. First, the PCA places a high value on the preaching of the Word. We are a Word and Sacrament denomination, and we believe that “The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and convertins sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.” Preaching matters, but right now our constitution does not regulate it in our churches.

The second reason has to do with the situation in Metro New York Presbytery. The pastor and Session at the church in New York stated that they believed that the constitution of the church did not prohibit a woman from standing in the pulpit and delivering a “message” on a Sunday morning. While our constitution already prohibited this (BCO 12-5.e), this overture sought to make this explicit in another place in our constitution. While one esteemed presbyter argued that this was not necessary, since our constitution already prohibited the practice, we often state things multiple times in our constitution.

This overture was ultimately voted down by a vote of 857 in favor, 906 opposed, and thirteen abstaining. If you do the math, the overture failed by just forty-nine votes. Given that it failed by such a small margin, I hope this matter comes back before the Assembly next year. It’s good to have standards. It’s good to have those standards explicitly stated. It’s good to have agreement on what the standards are. We should revisit this.

Jesus Calling

This year contained an overture you don’t normally see passed on the floor of the Assembly, one submitted by an individual, rather than a Presbytery. It concerned the book, Jesus Calling, written by Sarah Young. Mrs. Young, who has gone to be with the Lord now, was an MTW missionary and the wife of a PCA Teaching Elder. This book has caused controversy, as it places words in Christ’s voice that are not found in Scripture. Many are concerned that our members may read the book and believe that they will be able to hear from Christ outside of his Word. I don’t believe Mrs. Young intended to convey this message. By all accounts she was a godly woman, and a faithful missionary. Her husband stood on the floor and gave a moving speech to this effect, and we should all pray for her family in their time of grief.

The overture passed, not because we believe we should condemn Mrs. Young, or cast aspersions on her memory. Rather, the fault seems to have been with the agencies of the General Assembly. Therefore the Assembly asked two agencies, the Committee on Discipleship Ministries and the Committee on Mission to the World, to report regarding their relationship with this book and provide guidance to the Assembly on how it should be viewed. I want to state once more my condolences to the Young family, my thankfulness to Mrs. Young and her husband for their missionary work, and my desire that the family be comforted in their time of grief.

Representation Before the Courts

Overture 26 from Tennessee Valley Presbytery sought to expand the availability of representation for the accused in our church courts. When someone is brought up on charges in a case of church discipline, the most common outcome is that they withdraw from the process. This results in excommunication for contumacy (i.e. for “stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority, especially a court order or summons”). As presently written, BCO 32-19 states, “No professional counsel shall be permitted as such to appear and plead in cases of process in any court; but an accused person may, if he desires it, be represented before the Session by any communing member of the same particular church, or before any other court, by any member of that court.” So, if you are called to appear before the Session, any member of the local congregation may represent you, but only members of that congregation. If you are before the Presbytery, any member of that Presbytery may represent you, and so on.

The proposed amendment in Overture 26 would amend BCO 32-19 to read this way, “an accused person may, if he desires it, be represented before the Session or the Presbytery by any member in good standing of a church in the same Presbytery or by any Teaching Elder member of that Presbytery, or before the General Assembly by any member in good standing in the PCA.” This would allow the accused more resources for their defense, and it would hopefully keep people engaged in the process of church discipline rather than simply withdrawing. The overture passed, and will now be sent to the Presbyteries.

Atheist Testimony Round 2

The final overture we considered was Overture 1 from Piedmont Triad Presbytery. This overture sought to expand witness eligibility before the courts of the PCA. The current requirements for witness eligibility are found in BCO 35-1, which states, “All persons of proper age and intelligence are competent witnesses, except such as do not believe in the existence of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments Either party has the right to challenge a witness whom he believes to be incompetent, and the court shall examine and decide upon his competency.” So, as currently written, the BCO allows all persons of proper age and intelligence to testify, with the exception of atheists and universalists.

Why is this requirement in the BCO? There are two reasons. First, all witnesses are required to swear the following oath, found in BCO 35-8,

Do you solemnly promise, in the presence of God, that you will declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of your knowledge in the matter in which you are called to witness, as you shall answer it to the great Judge of the living and the dead?

We should note something about this oath. It is an oath. That is, it is, “a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.” Atheists can’t swear this oath, or any other oath for that matter. An atheist does not call God as witness. An atheist does not believe God will judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he says. Atheists can’t testify because they can’t swear the oath.

Second, atheists don’t believe they will stand before God one day. Now, surely they will, but they don’t believe they will. A person’s knowledge of God’s righteous judgment on the last day is the only means we have to compel them to tell the truth. In other words, we can’t compel them to tell the truth. We must simply trust that they know that God will hold them accountable for what they say. If someone lies under oath in the civil court, that’s perjury. They face criminal prosecution. If someone lies in a church court, especially if they aren’t members of the church, the church has no means of administering justice. Accordingly, we require that witnesses believe in God and in a future state of rewards and punishment because we want witnesses to know the gravity of what they are swearing. They’re swearing that God will bear witness to, and judge them by, the truthfulness of what they testify.

Overture 1 sought to amend witness eligibility in order to allow atheists to testify. It sought to remove the statement, “except such as do not believe in the existence of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments” in BCO 35-1, and to remove the requirement that the witness swear an oath, replacing it with a similar statement that was not an oath. The Overtures Committee recommended answering this overture in the negative, but a minority of the Committee recommended answering in the affirmative. Because of this, this overture sparked the longest debate of the Assembly.

Let me state, first, that I really do respect both sides of this debate. I’m as close to being “on the fence” with this overture as it is possible to be. Second, I think that the minority desired a good thing by wanting our courts to accept more evidence. Finally, other confessionally Reformed denominations have different requirements for witness eligibility, and I think we should listen to them and their wisdom. That being said, the minority report failed by a vote of 843 in favor, 880 against, and eighteen abstaining. It failed by thirty-seven votes.

This may come up again. This was the second year in a row that it was raised. I pray that we can come to some sort of consensus on this matter. We all desire the glory of God, the peace and purity of the church, and the keeping and reclaiming of disobedient sinners. We all desire truth. We all desire to do right. May God guide his church in the coming years.

Conclusion

The 51st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America was a success. It was a success because we came together as brothers, and even when we disagreed we remembered that we all serve one Master and Lord. There are areas where our church is not on the same page. There are areas where we need to find consensus. There is still work to do. Yet I always trust that Christ will not abandon his church. I trust that the Spirit will guide the church. I trust that the Father has showered his love on the church. And I trust that our Triune God will continue to cause us to be united in the truth of his Word. Amen!