Affirmations and an Appeal for Peace in the PCA
The PCA received me as a Minister of the Gospel twenty-plus years ago and I am so thankful for this remarkable community of service that has welcomed, instructed, and challenged me to grow in service to Christ. The joy of discovering this ministry home is something I want others to encounter too, and it is with a view to preserving and enhancing that gracious welcome that I’ve written what follows.
The PCA is my Church and it is passing through a season of considerable difficulty marked by conflict, dispiriting debate, and in some cases even fears about the possibility of division or fragmentation. I hope it doesn’t come to that but clearly, there are voices noting that stormy clouds are building on the horizon. No doubt pressures originating in the wider Evangelical culture influence our sense of brokenness. Michael Graham has observed a “six-way fracturing” in the Evangelical scene that is leading to a broad realignment across the Church in the United States . 1 I tend to concur with Graham’s analysis, while also noting pressures peculiar to the PCA’s history and the way its geographical expansion has led to certain tensions as well.
Influential voices in the PCA like Dr. Ligon Duncan and Dr. Kevin DeYoung have been at forefront of what many would consider a robust and necessary response to threats against the PCA’s fidelity to our Confession. Others, such as Dr. Tim Keller have been deeply concerned to expand and strengthen the PCA’s commitment to the Great Commission. All three have deep respect for one another and have often worked closely together not only for the good of the PCA but for the furtherance of Gospel clarity across the wider Body of Christ.
In more recent years, a group of ministers that includes Dr. Duncan in their number has been promoting the need for a deeply conservative movement in the PCA to protect it against what Dr. Harry Reeder has referred to as “Progressive Christianity”. Together this group forms the Council that directs “The Gospel Reformation Network”.
I believe there is much that is good in what this group of ministers desires to see in the PCA, though I am also obviously concerned that the aspects of the agenda pursued by the GRN will contribute to moving the PCA away from some key principles of our shared communion and mission in the name of preserving so much they believe is good. Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder if in the same way that Duncan, Keller, and DeYoung have worked so well together while sharing varying perspectives on important issues, we all might do so, putting and end to constant infighting and threats of division. Because I hope that is true, some reflections on the GRN and our differences seem to be in order. We can hope to work well together when we are both charitable in our view of others and transparent about what we believe to be true.
1. The Six Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism, by Michael Graham can be read here: https://mereorthodoxy.com/six-way-fracturing-evangelicalism/
As I recall, The Gospel Reformation Network began a few years ago over a deep concern for three particular matters. There might have been others, but these are the three I remember most clearly.
First, GRN leaders have sought to emphasize that PCA churches and officers must possess a robust doctrine of sanctification; in the aftermath of the Tullian Tchividgian situation, there was concern about views of saving grace that did not include repentance as a response to the gospel or lead to genuine growth in holiness as a result of regeneration.
Second, there was a concern over cultural accommodation in mission. In essence, it was suggested that some PCA advocates for contextualization in ministry were leading the church towards becoming too much like the world to win the world, thereby forfeiting its unique calling to show the fullness of Christ’s challenge to the world in addition to his love for the world.
Third, I recall an emphasis on the Church as a threatened community. By this was meant a two-fold problem: first, the liberalizing tendency of the church in the past was said to be present with us in the PCA and threatened to take us down the slippery slope into theological compromise; second, the secularizing of the West (or the US particularly), especially regarding sexual ethics, gender, and male-female relationships would create legal challenges to the church’s freedom to minister, as well as moral challenges to maintain its standards in a hostile culture that viewed the church with deep suspicion and a source of harm.
I hope my friends in the GRN will forgive me if I have misremembered their expressed concerns in some way, especially if I’ve misstated something or left something out. But, again, I am noting the early days of what I was hearing from the GRN.
Are these concerns expressed by the GRN valid? In some ways, Yes. The GRN is correct to note that these are the perpetual problems that trouble the Church from time to time. Distortions of grace, conformity to the world, and threatening cultures are not new problems. The degree to which the issue is a real problem rather than a perceived problem is a point of debate, but we must never ignore these concerns.
Is it possible to emphasize justification to such a degree that one loses sight of sanctification? Of course. While the two must always be distinguished, they must never be divorced. When justification is proclaimed to bring gospel comfort, but growth in grace for spiritual formation after the image of Christ is ignored, we have every reason for concern. Antinomianism is a distortion of the Gospel and should be resisted with as much determination as legalism.
Might the Church become so accommodated to its cultural setting in the name of an incarnational mission that it loses its distinctive witness as a light in the darkness? Certainly. Assimilation and accommodation are threats to witness just as much as attempts at domination. While that compromise might include issues of sexual license, it would indeed also include matters such as greed, nationalism, racist attitudes, indifference, and pride as well. Idols, after all, come in many forms and tempt the Church of God in every age and culture. Moreover, the very forms of the Christian religion can themselves be idolized, as the bronze serpent incident shows. In that case, a means of deliverance became an idolatrous trap and had to be destroyed. 2Together with their merely human traditions and structures, particular churches and denominations might all be subject to the same fate as that serpent if they cease to be a means of grace and instead begin to eclipse the face of God revealed in Christ by the gospel. Christ is a challenge to the world and its gods, its wise Lord as well as its humble Savior.
Might a good church experience theological declension through doctrinal carelessness and descend into an abyss of compromised irrelevance? Definitely. That’s happened so frequently in history that it's undeniable; anyone who suggests otherwise simply hasn’t been paying attention. So we should always be vigilant with our hearts and for the honor and glory of Christ in his Church.
Is it true that the freedoms of the Church in the US are under threat? I think this is a greatly overstated concern, but one must always be ready to explain and support the freedoms our nation’s Constitution declares are bestowed by God on all people rather than granted by the State to some. These liberties, however, are for all people and not for Christians alone.
2. See Numbers 21:6-9 together with 2 Kings 18:4. Even a means of great deliverance, one that pointed ahead to Christ’s death on the cross, can become an idol we worship rather than a sign that points us to the only One who is rightly worshiped and obeyed.
Since the GRN began, other matters have become the focus of outspoken concern for the Council, perhaps to push back against these perceived dangers and argue for a robust Reformed orthodoxy that sees us through these challenging times.
Controversies over Revoice and the nature of gospel transformation and sanctification together with the qualities necessary in those who lead in God’s house are current challenges and remain a catalyst for action with many. This action is understandable, given the cultural moment and the theological stakes.
How the PCA views our relationship to the Westminster Standards is yet another urgent matter for some, highlighted by pursuing a view of Subscription endorsed as “Good Faith” but which presses to forbid Elders teaching their allowable exceptions to the Standards.
A few in the GRN Council have expressed deep misgivings over the breadth of liturgical liberties PCA churches demonstrate. Clearly, for some, there is concern that this variety threatens the Reformed theological view of the ordinary means of grace and the regulative principle. I don’t think that this is an expressed concern of the GRN Council as a whole, but given how Jon Payne and Rick Phillips especially note this in their work, I am concerned about its further development.
More recently, some GRN Council members have expressed deep concern over Critical Race Theory and their unhappiness with what they believe are secular views of social justice promoted by some PCA leaders.
In response to what it perceives as valid threats, the GRN states that its purpose is “To cultivate healthy Reformed churches in the Presbyterian Church in America.” The GRN goes on to list seven principles of its vision and distinctives. These are:
Biblical Fidelity and Confessional Integrity
Gospel-Driven and Christ Exalting Ministry
Earnest Prayer and Expository Preaching
Intentional Evangelism and Personal Discipleship
Godly Leadership and Presbyterian Polity
Reformed Worship and Vibrant Community
Missional Clarity and Church Multiplication
All of this is information is available here: https://gospelreformation.net/ Each of these headings has a brief summary of the noted principle accompanied by Scripture references.
What’s not to like? Rightly understood, nothing. There’s nothing here that’s even controversial among us and everything is something to promote and celebrate. Rightly understood, I want to affirm all seven points. Perhaps this makes me a seven-point Calvinist! It certainly does mean that when I sit down with a friend in the GRN, I am conversing with someone who in large measure loves what I love and believes what I believe.
So Why is There Conflict?
As far as I can tell, the differences exist in at least four ways. First, many believe that there are other areas of concern just as urgently in need of attention as those raised by the GRN, but these continue to be ignored. Second, many GRN supporters I’ve spoken with seem to believe that those “on the other side” from them don’t take the threats seriously enough and do little about them, or even secretly harbor views that sympathize with those threats. Third, it seems we differ in the application of the seven points the GRN affirms. Lastly, at least in some cases, I believe the heart-posture of some appears to be unnecessarily harsh and unkind.
I’ll leave aside the matter of additional urgent issues for now and focus instead on what response is appropriate to the perceived threat level, the application of the points, and the heart posture of their advocates.
Application
If ‘Confessional Integrity’ in practice means either de jure strict subscription (which the GRN members I know disavow) or de facto strict subscription (silencing a minister on allowable and granted exceptions - which most of the GRN members I know affirm), then there’s going to be significant disagreement with those who believe the PCA was founded to be a Good-Faith Subscription denomination. If that is the position, then the phrases “Biblical Fidelity” and “Confessional Integrity” will be so interwoven as authorities in practice that they may well become indistinguishable.
To be clear, no one believes that is acceptable and no one would affirm it, but that can occur in practice when a subordinate confessional authority takes on the air of unassailable final court of appeal and pastors are not allowed to preach and teach their declared, Presbytery-affirmed, allowable exceptions. However, if it is increasingly the case that Elders are not keeping good faith on their views, and hiding their real beliefs behind a mask of confessional conformity, or using words in duplicitous ways, one can hardly castigate my friends in the GRN for calling out those who are not being straightforward about what they believe. They are right to demand a more profound commitment to our Confessional Standards, one in keeping with our vows. A cavalier approach to the Confession and Catechisms of one’s Church is never wise, and for ministers, such an attitude would be deadly. The Standards are part of our Constitution and must be afforded the respectful place such an authority holds.
If “Reformed Worship” in practice means that only a narrow and particular liturgical style or cultural heritage may be held as valid, or the pristinizing of a particular era is put forward as especially pleasing to God, then problems will arise for those who have all the elements of Reformed worship but express them in different ways across a variety of cultural settings. I have to hope that the GRN will not pursue a path that challenges the proper liberties of PCA congregations on this matter. The GRN hasn’t yet made this a central focus of their work, but some Council members have pursued it in certain ways that are very restrictive and this makes me wonder how point six will be addressed.
If “Presbyterian Polity” means not only that our churches are governed by Elders and that our Courts create and nourish both connection and accountability, but also that women have no voice at all in public worship (prayer, reading Scripture, reporting on various mission endeavors, leading in music, etc, as was recently promoted in but thankfully rejected by the Calvary Presbytery), or that their wise counsel is never needed by our Elders, Committees, and Boards, or if we go beyond the Bible in restricting their service, then there’s going to be disagreement. To be clear, I do not believe this is the official position of the GRN Council, nor has it been a matter they’ve collectively sought to address. But I note its pursuit by some Council members and I find that troubling.
I don’t think any of this is new. I’ve seen these struggles around the PCA for years and perhaps we’re just going to have to keep working together despite our disagreements on the application of what we believe because we have authentic agreement on so much of what we believe.
There are other concerns that are equally threatening in my view, including rabid radical individualism, culture warriorism, slippery slopes into fundamentalism (slopes descend in many directions!), disregard for minority voices, and - in the name of the opposition to CRT - an unwillingness to engage with the many matters of racial injustice that afflict our members and society in the light of Scripture’s numerous commands to seek justice for the oppressed and to care for the needy.
What is new among us is a certain stridency in our communication that is alarming. That’s the “posture of the heart” issue that concerns me.
Heart Posture
On my side of the PCA (so to speak), one can note a certain impatience with those on the other side who are viewed as culturally reactionary, pursuing either a policy of defensive withdrawal from society or a combative pugnaciousness with it, both often driven by fear. That strident impatience on my side is ugly, rooted in pride, and it's in me. It's on full-tilt neon display when my attitude comes across as “I see what you’re doing that’s wrong and I thank God I’m not making the same mistake.”
Stridency on the other side is also clear, however, as well. I feel it when I hear Rick Phillips assert that those who disagree with him just don’t care about holiness as much he does, or when Dr. Reeder rolls out the ‘progressive’ label as a pejorative about his brothers in the PCA. On occasion, he’s offered the qualification that this isn’t the same as the Liberalism Professor Machen opposed, but then adds that it is “cut from the same cloth” - a distinction without a difference in my view.
Suppose we back away from this approach and simply say honestly where we agree and where we disagree. In that case, if brothers on all sides will be honest about what they truly believe, what they are uncertain about and willing to consider afresh, and what they could learn from one another, we might well discover in that place of clarity whether this community of churches, ministries, and ministers can be sustained in a unity that pleases God and calls forth his blessing.
Appropriate Response
That goal is perhaps nowhere more difficult to achieve than in our conversations and debates about human sexuality and same-sex attraction (though we do have substantial unity on the AIC Report). Surveying the impact of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling on churches and society, the confusing and contradictory lines of teaching that were evident in some of the Revoice Conference presentations, the rising influence of false teaching on this subject from popular Christian authors, along with an open abandonment of the long-held view of Christian marriage and sexual holiness by some we know, many in the PCA and the wider Evangelical world believed “something must be said”. The Nashville Statement was one attempt to do so. It was not the last.
In the PCA, the Nashville Statement was commended as a faithful statement of the Christian position at the 2017 General Assembly. In addition, our standards concerning marriage in the Directory for Public Worship in our Book of Church Order were made Constitutionally binding at the 2019 General Assembly. Finally, an excellent ad interim study committee was named at the 2019 General Assembly and charged to examine the issues carefully and bring a report to the church, a mission they ably fulfilled. The report was presented and then commended by a nearly unanimous vote at the 2021 General Assembly.
While many of us believed that our existing Confessional Standards, along with these additional clarifying and strengthening actions, were adequate to make plain our beliefs and practices on these controversial issues, others did not. Numerous overtures were sent to the 2021 General Assembly designed in some way to amend the Book of Church Order regarding ordination examination of candidates and what character issues might disqualify a man from consideration.
The final language of two of these overtures, even though passed by large margins at General Assembly, proved to be deeply problematic as they were debated in our several Presbyteries. Both failed to achieve the needed two-thirds approval to be presented at this year’s General Assembly for final ratification. New overtures for fresh consideration at our upcoming General Assembly are being written and perhaps one or more of these will be found to be acceptable across a broader spectrum of the PCA. I hope that will be the case.
At this point, I should note a really difficult problem many of us experience in the aftermath of the debate over those two overtures. Some of those who supported the overtures believe that those who opposed them did so because they were in some way compromised on the issue, that they simply didn’t care as deeply as they should’ve about this important matter. Some pro-overture brothers believe that their anti-overture brothers are not serious about holiness and protecting the flock. That assertion earned some strong pushback - and it was deserved.
Why did some really good brothers conclude that others weren’t sufficiently orthodox on the issue? One reason I’ve heard is the view that most of the anti-overture group (and that includes me) have been far too passive about statements made by Pastor Greg Johnson, and the influence of the Revoice conferences in the PCA, along with Dr. Johnson’s church hosting Revoice in 2018.
When I objectively examine this view, I am forced to admit that little if anything from my side of the debate has been said publicly about these issues by way of critique and correction. That is unfortunate and it is understandably a source of bewilderment and disappointment for some. I do think that there has been inadequate public engagement over the problems with Revoice and some of Greg Johnson’s public statements from my side of the PCA. This is no doubt driven by the unhelpful and all too frequently unkind and less than accurate responses to Greg in particular, or to sexuality questions more broadly considered. I believe Greg has sought to tell the truth about his experience and is seeking to find ways to apply the Gospel not only to himself but to all who face this struggle. I thank God for this! But that’s not a good excuse for silence when something should be questioned or corrected. We all need that and I am grateful for friends in the PCA who privately and publicly encourage me to do better. That includes friends who support the GRN agenda and those who don’t.
Tensions in the Conversation on Sexuality
There are real tensions in the conversations we have on this issue. We are all aware of friends, family, and church members who have suffered deeply in their struggle to overcome same-sex attraction. We know those who have been verbally and psychologically abused in the church, who have been bullied, or considered suicide, or concluded that God hated them because they did not experience the transformation they desired, and we grieve with them. I know that every PCA Pastor wants to offer Christ to all who suffer in these ways.
We are also aware of those who are the victims of sexual predators in the church, some of whom were homosexual pedophiles. We are also all keenly aware of the radical and rapid shifts in our wider culture on the acceptance and celebration of homosexual relationships, and the fact that the language on the subject shifts so rapidly means that clear communication is difficult. I suspect we all sometimes feel as if we’re speaking in tongues on the issue without anyone there to interpret.
All of this is clouded by the assertion that a progressive and destructive movement is overtaking the PCA, evidenced by our lack of commitment to orthodox views on human sexuality. It’s not surprising that such assertions met with strong objections. Dr. Tim LeCroy has demonstrated that the case for some kind of massive compromise in the PCA on this issue is greatly overstated. His article is a must-read for those who want to suggest that the PCA is on the verge of succumbing to theological liberalism (See Dr. LeCroy’s article here:).
At least some on the GRN Council - and undoubtedly other Elders in the PCA - do not believe any man who experiences same-sex temptation can serve as an officer. I have approached the issue knowing this to be the case and have therefore pushed back against that particular view. Again, this isn’t about whether a person believes the transformation of erotic sexual desires from same-sex to opposite-sex is possible, whether completely or partially in this life; or whether a person with same-sex desires who mortifies those desires and increasingly dies to sin and lives unto Christ in holy love can serve; it is about whether a person who experiences same-sex desires to any degree can serve as an officer (I wrote about my “Sam Allberry Test” after last year’s GA and what I noted then remains my view).
Some GRN Council members believe that same-sex temptation is more heinous than opposite-sex temptation and that those who experience it are disqualified from serving as officers in the Church. 3 So this isn’t about “identity”, but rather the continuing presence of the disordered desire. In the view of at least some, if that desire is present in any measure, the man is disqualified. Period. That view appeared to many to be present in the recently debated Overtures. Given that position, it is not surprising that large numbers of PCA Pastors and elders who voted to commend the AIC Study Committee Report on sexuality voted against the Overtures. That also included some members of the Committee.
Nevertheless, if those of us who reject views we regard to be harmful also fail to note the seriousness of sin; or if we don’t seem to recognize the wounds of those who were abused by homosexual assault inflicted on them by people in church leadership positions; or say nothing about the flaunting of our Standards by an ordained man (who is no longer a PCA Pastor); or Dr. Johnson’s actions that led to his and his Session’s rebuke by the Missouri Presbytery; or turn a blind eye to the disrespectful manner in which Dr. Johnson wrote in a USA Today article about his brothers in this denomination - an article with an unfortunate headline that directly contradicted our beliefs about these issues4 - then one can hardly blame GRN Council members and others for being suspicious of our fidelity to the Standards we claim to uphold. Silence is often understood as an endorsement. That won’t do. To the degree that I have failed to note that seriousness, dealing exclusively with the other problems, I apologize.
We all have a tendency to lump everyone together in the same category, a practice that is not only unfair but, even if unintentional, damaging to the fabric of our fellowship. I don’t think every member of the GRN Council agrees with one another about absolutely everything, whether in terms of content or delivery. Likewise, Council members might be surprised to learn that those with whom they find themselves differing in the PCA from time to time are not in lock-step agreement on how to deal with some of the issues, nor are we galvanized by support for Greg Johnson. 5
3. The case for viewing same-sex sin as more heinous is clear in regard to its status as an ‘abomination’ (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) and its place in the Vice List of Romans 1:18ff. The issue in question, however, is temptation rather than act. Is the desire sinful? Yes. Our Confession is clear on that matter. But it is the act that is in view in Leviticus and Romans, and we know that these abominations described in these passages were practiced not only by those who might today identify with the modern term ‘homosexual’, but also included those who would not and used this practice as a matter of exerting power and mastery over another. In addition, the abominations of Proverbs 6:16-19 must be kept in view. These include slander and spreading discord, as well as haughtiness. I don’t deny that issues of human sexuality deserve our focused attention in the Church just now, but it hardly needs stating that haughtiness and slander in the Body of Christ present a problem of equal if not greater weight and consequence! Where might we find conferences and articles addressing our deep concern about these abominations?
4. I appreciate that Dr. Johnson did not write the headline, nor did he have editorial control at USA Today, but the misleading headline served as a summary of the article and further inflamed an already volatile situation.
I want my friends in the GRN to hear me when I say that I understand why you’re responding to the issues which concern you. I share those concerns, even if we differ on how to deal with them. Such concern is a sane response to a church threatened with sinful pressures within and sinister snares without. That’s why we need to sing Psalm 133 without our fingers crossed as if we could celebrate unity only with those with whom we completely agree.
I want my brothers in the GRN Council to know that while I disagree with some of them about how to address this issue about ordained ministry, and that I reject the notion that some kind of theological progressivism has invaded the PCA, I do agree that if such sin and compromise - or even confusion - exists with our leaders, we would need to deal with this in Biblical and Confessional terms, fearlessly, thoroughly, and lovingly. There can be no excuse for defending the indefensible simply because another person’s approach to the violation isn’t in line with one’s view of how to proceed. A lack of charity can’t be an excuse for a lack of precision, whether the issue is brain surgery or theology.
5. I agree with a great deal of what Dr. Johnson has written in his recent book, but that doesn’t mean I think he’s always written or spoken wisely and helpfully. Pastor Johnson’s USA Today article is just one example of where we would strongly differ on how to communicate.
So What Now?
We should aim at both clarity and charity by stating what we believe and doing so without the strident tones of the past year’s debate. Instead, we should say what we believe and do so respectfully and with an attempt to listen deeply to one another.
I continue to believe that PCA Elders agree on at least 95% of what is before us. However, I am also willing to admit that the 5% may be a bridge too far for some to maintain fellowship. I hope that isn’t the case, but I understand and accept that possibility. I will work as hard as I can to build bridges with all, but I respect those who conclude that our connections are no longer tenable.
It’s also true that I won’t stay silent if the GRN holds conferences and promotes ideas that seek to reshape the PCA into a new kind of Church I could never have joined in the first place. The PCA I joined is the PCA I want to see maintained. I’m committed to that vision, and I will defend it on the floor of our Courts and in partnership with all who desire to see the PCA marked by our core beliefs, practices, values, and goals.
So here’s my start. It’s not all I could say, but it seemed a decent beginning, given the current issues.
I believe in Good Faith Subscription as the right approach to maintaining our confessional integrity. That’s the language of the BCO, and it has served us well. In the Good Faith part of Subscription, I also believe that men must mean what they say when they affirm that they agree with what our Standards teach unless they note otherwise. I’m glad we note our exceptions in writing, in our own words, and that Presbytery votes on these. And if Presbytery affirms an exception as ‘not striking at the vitals’, then the brother should be allowed to teach it, always noting what the Confession has already said, and doing so charitably and humbly. Three cheers for doctrinal accountability, fidelity, and integrity. I believe the GRN is right to insist on confessional integrity. I think they are deeply mistaken to silence brothers teaching their permitted exceptions.
I don’t believe the cultural moment or political tides should define the boundaries of our fellowship or the priorities of our mission. I don’t think US politics or political party loyalties (or the lack thereof) should define our Christian commitment. We are not immune to the profound influence our cultural settings have on our souls. The prejudices, pains, and fears of our shared stories deeply impact how we think and how we view ourselves and others. That noted while we can’t embrace cultural change as our chief mission (which must always be about the Gospel’s proclamation), neither can we ignore culture as irrelevant to our mission (as if indifference can be equated with spirituality). The Gospel does have implications for society, civic duty, and interpersonal relationships outside the Church and the fruit of the Gospel will be seen in each of these areas.
I believe that those who acknowledge their sexual brokenness as sin, including experiencing sinful temptation, and live in daily repentance, turning to God from sin, mortifying the flesh and its sinful desires, and looking to God for his grace to grow in holiness and conformity to the image of Jesus, whether single or married, can if so gifted, called, and approved, serve as officers in Christ’s Church. No less a figure than Richard Lovelace wrote long ago that such men could be greatly used of God to help believers grow in the faith and unbelievers come to faith in Christ.
However, I also believe there are sexual sins that, if committed or existent in the heart, do disqualify a man from office. These include assault on a child, the sexual and physical abuse of women, misogyny, or the celebration of sexual sin and sinfulness as normative. We mourn our sin; we must never celebrate it, and those who do or promote doing so cannot serve as officers in the PCA.
I don’t believe the PCA has appropriately responded to our own previous Study Committee’s report on Women in Ministry in the Church and that we are impoverished as a result. We have been deeply concerned about growing social pressures arising from radical feminism but I am not convinced that we have been adequately concerned about spiritual giftedness in our sisters and how God may use them and all to whom he has given his Spirit to further the mission of Jesus in the world. This lack of attention must be addressed appropriately and fully. We can note the same about the grievous matter of sexual harassment and abuse in the church by leaders. I am grateful for the initiatives being taken now, and that Rachel Denhollander is assisting us in this task, but we have been far too slow to deal with this matter.
I believe that as Reformed Churches, we should possess a vibrant ministry of word, prayer, and sacrament; that Sessions must be vigilant to ensure that the songs of worship in the Church teach sound doctrine, glorify Christ, and edify the body; that our worship should be credal and in good order. I believe the important elements of Reformed worship should be carefully taught as we live in a time of significant confusion on this very matter.
I don’t believe that Sessions should lack the freedom to order worship as it seems best to them, in accordance with broad principles, serving the communication of the Gospel in their particular missional context and in regard to their pastoral concerns. That means Redeemer Presbyterian in Austin should be free to rejoice in the Lord by employing beautiful choral music with magnificent pipe organ accompaniment. Christ Community in Franklin should be free to celebrate the Gospel with American Folk music. At the same time, every Reformed church and mission in the PCA must always be extended the same courtesy as we all seek to offer to God acceptable worship with reverence and awe.
I believe we must raise the bar for qualification to serve as an ordained officer in the PCA, not lower it. We say we affirm discipleship, evangelism, and church planting. But when is the last time a Presbytery examining body asked a candidate for ordination to share his experience of personal evangelism that resulted in someone coming to faith in Jesus? Why don’t we ask men about who they have discipled or taught or served in some way already as they come for ordination?
Committees ask all manner of personal, theological, biblical, and historical questions (and must), but where are the questions about soul-winning and views on how the church can best engage in mission in the world? Do we even ask if a man knows how to share the Gospel with someone effectively? I’m delighted if he knows and defends the five points of Calvinism, but I’d also be thrilled if he could show me how he would present the Gospel from the Scriptures to someone who needs the Savior. If a candidate for ordination can’t open up the Bible for someone in the way Philip did for the Ethiopian eunuch and lead him to Christ, and if he’s never shown any fruitfulness in seeing others converted to Christ through his ministry, how can we say that he’d be an effective leader and equipper of others in evangelism and discipleship?
In Conclusion
We have a great deal about which we agree in the PCA and we have some points of disagreement too. They’re not insignificant. Are they so great that wise men praying and talking together can’t find a path forward together for all? I don’t know the answer to that question, though I hope the answer is a resounding ‘We must find a way.”
We may differ on what our chief concerns should be, or how we should seek for change, but I don’t think we differ on our love for Jesus Christ, his Gospel, and his Church. I hope that one day soon, we will join together with many more to celebrate the Beautiful Gospel Orthodoxy of so much that God is doing across and via the PCA. I also want to celebrate with my GRN brothers a shared and deep loyalty to our Confessional Faith, a determined commitment to the proclamation of the Gospel that frees us from the penalty and the power and pollution of sin, and weep together in prayer for the further outpouring of God’s mercies here and around the world.