I have heard it multiple times:
“We follow the BCO except where it disagrees with the Bible…”
or
“But the Bible overrides the BCO.”
Is it possible a denomination claiming to be Reformed would have a governing document that fails to submit to the Scripture? Is it conceivable the PCA, which historically confesses divine right church government (Jure Divino Presbyterianism) would adopt a subordinate standard at odds with the plain teaching of the Bible? Some seem to assume so.
I. What is the Book of Church Order (BCO)?
Many members of the PCA are likely unaware of what the BCO is. The BCO is part of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which means it is subordinate to the Scriptures. The BCO functions not as a summary of our doctrinal beliefs, but instead more like a practical manual for operations and procedures within the denomination.
We joyfully give thanks that God’s word has made clear “all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life.” But the Bible does not give us a blueprint or manual for how to do every single thing in the Church:
…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (WCF 1:6).
The BCO is drawn from the words and principles of the Scripture and applies them to the official functions in the life of the PCA.
For example, the Bible tells us congregations are served by elders and deacons and the Scripture gives us the qualifications of those offices. The Bible does not, however, go into great detail as to how we select men for those offices. What the BCO does is take the truth of Scripture on that matter and present it in a summarized and explicated manner that can be clearly and concisely applied in every congregation (e.g. BCO Chapters 7-9, 24).
This accomplishes at least two things:
It saves every Session from having to “re-invent the wheel” when electing church officers. The BCO provides a basic framework describing the qualifications and duties of the officers as well as the procedures for training, nominating, electing, and ordaining/installing officers. Anyone who has ever served on any board knows how helpful it is to have a starting point and a framework for any project.
It provides unity of practice and understanding across the denomination. This enables the thousands of churches in the PCA to hold one another accountable, because we have all agreed to follow the same rules and abide by the same standards. Where a church has deviated from the BCO, the other churches in her presbytery can call her back to faithfulness and integrity.
II. How does the Bible relate to the BCO?
The 66 books that make up the Bible comprise various types of literature (e.g. historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, “Gospel,” epistles, etc.), and the authors make use of various literary devices (e.g. metaphor, allegory, sarcasm, etc.) and sometimes no literary device at all, but are intended to be understood in a strictly literal sense. Moreover, sometimes the narrative is prescriptive and sometimes it is simply descriptive. All of this can make biblical interpretation challenging.
Since there is one Divine Author of the Scripture, it never truly contradicts itself, although some portions of the Scripture are more easily understood than others (cf. 2 Peter 3:15ff). Our Confession of Faith tells us how we can make sense of the difficult parts of the Scripture:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (WCF 1:9).
We acknowledge there are difficult parts of the Scripture, but we also confess the difficult parts of the Scripture are understood by the more clear portions of the Scripture either explaining them or helping us to see what those difficult portions both can and cannot mean.
But even then, there may be disagreement over the precise meaning and application of that portion of the Scripture. This is the case even with church polity.
For instance, there are numerous areas in which faithful Christians disagree on church government. For example, our Anglican neighbors believe the word presbyter and episkopos refer to two different types of church officials: the former a priest and the latter a bishop. Presbyterians, by contrast, believe the Scripture uses those two words interchangeably to refer to the one office of elder and his function as an overseer.
Even among Presbyterians there is some disagreement about the eldership. Is the eldership one office with two orders (ruling elder and teaching elder) or is the office of ruling elder separate from that of the office of minister?
This is an area in which having the BCO helps us. The BCO is our mutually agreed-upon rule book for how we will understand difficult portions of Scripture related to the government of the Church. Along with the Westminster Standards, its statements are, “accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice” (BCO 29-1).
Thus, if I truly believe an episcopal form of government is biblical, I am not free within the PCA to don a miter and start behaving like a prelate and commence to boss around the ruling elders in the congregation as if I were a bishop. Why? Because we have all agreed the Book of Church Order is a faithful summary of the Bible’s teaching on church government and we have vowed together that it conforms with “the general principles of biblical polity” (BCO 21-4, 24-6). Therefore I have no right to disregard the instructions and procedures set forth in the BCO to suit my preferences.
If we disregard the requirements of the BCO whenever it suits us, confusion, chaos, and distrust will inevitably result. Ecclesiastical disobedience is neither option nor virtue in the Kingdom of God. PCA Elders must have the integrity to keep their vows and abide by the Book of Church Order.
The “Form of Government” and “Rules of Discipline” contained in the BCO are not optional guidelines. We have all agreed (and vowed before God) the BCO is in conformity with Biblical polity, so to depart from the BCO in practice is no light matter.
III. What if I Disagree with the BCO?
Officers in the PCA are not free to practice our disagreements with the Book of Church Order. So what options are available to those who believe the BCO deviates from the teaching of Scripture?
A. Submit to the Wisdom of the Brethren
This is a hard thing to do in our Post-Modern Age, especially for people of my generation. I am the product of a government school system which told me I was special, I could do anything, and I should change the world.
I personally believe there is no biblical warrant for “assistant pastors.” But I have submitted my own views to the wisdom of the brethren reflected in our BCO, and I have never voted against a man because he was called to be an assistant pastor.
The BCO is the result of generations of Christians studying the Scripture and refining the constitutional documents to bring them into greater conformity to the Scripture. TE Wayne Sparkman at the PCA Historical Center and the late TE Morton Smith in his Commentary both trace the development of our own Book of Church Order.
As such, some of our disagreements we might simply hold while submitting our own practices to the wisdom of the greater body and her historic practice.
B. Overture to Change the Book of Church Order
Others have found their disagreements with aspects of the BCO rise to a level where they believe they need to change our polity to bring it into conformity with their interpretation of Scripture.
Metro New York Presbytery proposed a local option regarding deacons, but the brothers later decided to withdraw the overture.
A better example comes from some years ago when a member of the National Partnership asserted regarding the PCA:
We are within reach of asserting a proper view of the ministry of women in the PCA. Practice is still a long ways away, but I believe the change in our polity leading to women on boards and agencies in the PCA is only one year from reality. If men are going to exercise authority in the courts of the PCA in true fruitfulness, they will require the committee work of both men and women in service to the Lord’s Church (emphasis original; pp. 282-283).
And then later described a “denomination worth having” as being one in which
the unordained, including women, … serve as voting members on committees of our boards and agencies (p. 295).
Men espousing such a view had the integrity and initiative to craft overtures to effect the change they desired in order to make the PCA what they described as “a denomination worth having.”
Crafting overtures and proposing reforms is a vital part of healthy, faithful churchmanship. If a man believes the PCA’s polity is unbiblical, he is not free to simply disregard it. Instead, he must faithfully work to reform the polity. By this we love the body of Christ and work for the greater manifestation of the glory of Christ within the PCA.
C. Depart in Peace
But what options are available when the wider PCA rejects one’s attempts to bring the constitution of the PCA into greater conformity with one’s interpretation of Scripture?
If a man (or church court) believes an aspect of the BCO is so unbiblical that he cannot in good conscience abide by it, then he must leave the PCA.
There are other avenues of ecclesiastical fellowship available, which allow for more latitude of practice and doctrine. One example is the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). This would be a great choice for men who desire the appearance and prestige of being part of a confessional communion, but without the rigor and specificity of the PCA.
The CREC adopts a latitudinarian approach to confessional subscription: officers and congregations may choose from a diverse and even contradictory list of confessions representing Baptist, Anglican, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian traditions.
However the CREC broadness may yet be a bit too wide for some of those for whom the PCA is too narrow. There are other options, such as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).
Unlike the CREC, the EPC maintains a more focused commitment to the Westminster Standards, but permits significant variation on matters such as church office, worship, and even spiritual gifts. This constitutional tolerance for non-conformity is reflected in their motto: “In Essentials, Unity. In Non-Essentials, Liberty. In All Things, Charity.” Unsurprisingly, the EPC is the destination of the largest number of departing PCA ministers according to TE Zack Groff’s research.
In the PCA, however, our standards and our vows are clear. We must abide by the Book of Church Order; we have sworn oaths together saying we believe it conforms to Biblical polity, so let us live together practicing what we have pledged and hold one another accountable for the honor of Christ, the purity of His bride, and the peace of His body.
If men are willing to disregard their vows and our constitution, then the PCA invites the judgment of Him who keeps covenant and before Whom we have made our vows (WCF 22:6). It is a beautiful thing when brethren dwell in unity (cf. Psalm 133), and our mutual commitment and submission to the Book of Church Order is a means of promoting that beautiful unity.
GM Ryan,
there's really a lot to take in here, and for good reason. Cudo's for a well laid out exposition.
If I may engage in a hypothectical senario?
Lets say a TE in the PCA has spoken/written/gone on a tv news show/preached on, a self-declared identity (of the modern definition) that is in oposition to clear biblical doctrine, the PCA's polity and practice and the BCO.
Let's say this has gone on for years now
Let's say this particulas TE was roundly applauded at a PCA GA
Let's say that no one has confronted him to his face about this (see Mt 18)
Let's say that a person sitting in a pew at a small PCA church in the Northeast sat down with his TE and asked him some pointed questions about this and was told that this TE in question is "a true believer and a Godly man."
Let's say that the pew sitter knows this is patently untrue.
What's to be the conclusion here for the poor pew sitter?
I believe the BCO ignores the right for a Christian to be heard. Any Christian rightly goes to a church and asks questions, listens, before joining. During this time a Christian discovers the pastor and elders support of freemasonary, the pastor's endorsement of CRT and intersectionality, the pastor and elder's involvement in slander and gossip, the pastor's wife's slander, gossip, threats, outbursts of anger, promoting psychology and enniagram, stating she "could not live without her therapist," the pastor's mother supporting prayer with the Pope on a group chat with women in the church, the unbelief of his children, and when lovingly requesting to meet with the pastor, elders (none of whom knew the slightest thing about the Bible or the BOC), sending a certified letter to the Christian to never have anything to do with the church or its members, hence defying the Bible in order to make sure nobody else at the church would know what was going on. Yet, Christian cannot go to the Session or the Presbytery at all because Christian is not a member. The destruction of friendships, the ungodliness of it, the secretive way they have done all this is a shame on Christ and those in the church who are allowed to still be unaware of what is going on. The Christian should be allowed to be heard even if not a member.