General Assembly Preview: Polity, Procedure & Personnel
The PCA's 51st General Assembly in Richmond lacks the social controversies that overshadowed recent assemblies, but this year's GA has the potential to reshape the character of the PCA.
Thanks to last year’s overture from the Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (PMV), a broad consensus regarding officer qualifications and character seems to be emerging in the PCA. This much-needed respite from debates on sexuality and abuse has given the PCA the luxury to focus on other issues that may seem less exciting, but may be more significant.
This year’s Assembly will focus largely on three main issues: Polity, Procedure, and Personnel. The Assembly will have the opportunity to consider whether to uphold our polity and/or to reform our judicial procedures. Additionally the Assembly will take crucial votes regarding the personnel who comprise our GA Committees and Judicial Commission as well as for the staff who administer the daily operations of the denominational agencies.
A number of men have prepared guides to and analyses of the overtures as they prepared for GA. Some of them have been made available to others; this is not an attempt to sway votes, but to aid the brethren in their own preparations:
TE David Coffin
RE Howie Donahoe
TEs Jared Nelson & Scott Edburg (Polity Matters Podcast)
TE Fred Greco
Whether you’re an elder or not, I’d encourage you to consider the commentary provided by these brothers. It will help you to better understand and to talk with the elders and members of your congregation about the issues before the Assembly.
I. Presiding Officer
The first vote of the Assembly will be to elect a new moderator. TE Fred Greco did a superb job in the role at the PCA’s Semi-Centennial Assembly. An attempt to elect him “moderator for life” was ruled out of order at the close of last year.
By custom, this year’s moderator will come from among the PCA’s Ruling Elders, since last year’s moderator was a Teaching Elder.
For Prayer: Ask the Lord to grant the Church a moderator who is clear, compassionate, and competent to efficiently guide the Assembly through the business. Pray God will give the moderator wisdom in the appointments and rulings he will make.
II. Previous Overtures
One of the first votes of the Assembly will be whether to ratify the Amendments to the Book of Church Order that were passed by the 50th General Assembly. This year there are three items the 51st Assembly may ratify:
Item 1: The titles of pastor, elder, and deacon may be used to refer only to men ordained by a church court to those offices.
Item 2: Officers in the PCA must conform to the biblical requirement of chastity in their convictions, character, and conduct.
Item 3: Any confession from a person coming as his own accuser must be reviewed by the person(s) offended before a Church Court approves an official confession.
For Prayer: Ask the Lord to grant unity to the PCA regarding decisions on these items and to promote truth, righteousness, and justice in all the Courts of the PCA.
III. Polity
Review of Presbytery Records (RPR)
Among the most important works of the General Assembly is the examination of the minutes of the 88 presbyteries that comprise the PCA. This is a necessary component of our polity and ensures consistency and fairness across the spectrum of the PCA.
Each year a committee consisting of (up to) one representative from each presbytery examines the minutes of the presbyteries to ensure the presbyteries are upholding the theology of the Westminster Standards, balancing the rights and responsibilities of the congregations and ministers who comprise the Presbyteries, and correctly recording the actions of the Presbyteries.
Holding one another accountable, spurring one another along, and encouraging the brethren is a crucial aspect of Presbyterianism. The RPR committee meets this week; its report is usually worth careful consideration.
At last year’s General Assembly two presbyteries were referred to the Judicial Commission (SJC) due to irregularities in their minutes. For example, Metro New York Presbytery will have to report back on how it has fulfilled the corrective actions mandated by the SJC to this year’s Assembly (see WS Pod Episode 27 for more).
Preaching (Overture 3)
Last year the PCA saw a number of congregations depart for independency or more progressive faith communions over the issue of women’s roles (see WS Pod Special Episode for more).
Even though some churches have left the PCA due to a desire for women to preach, other congregations continue to push the envelope on the matter. Pee Dee Presbytery has proposed granting a section of our Directory of Worship (Chapter 53) constitutional authority and specifying that only “qualified men” may preach.
In our day there is great confusion both in the Church and the culture. Language games and equivocations abuse the plain meaning of words, which require us to further clarify our position on preaching: what it is and who may do it. The Overture says much more than that only “qualified men” may preach, but that seems to be the focus of the attention. The definition and description of a sermon contained in BCO 53 is a needed addition to our Constitution.
(See WS Pod Episode 9 for an interview with the author of this overture or this recent episode of Presbycast).
RUF Affiliation Agreement
At last year’s Assembly, there was prolonged debate over a new standardized Affiliation Agreement that RUF National desired to have implemented across the denomination.
TE Zach Byrd of PMV successfully argued before the Assembly last year that RUF National Committee must submit any substantial change to the review and control of the General Assembly.
As the new “Affiliation Agreement” was crafted for consideration by the Richmond Assembly, careful attention was paid to the relationship between a campus ministry of RUF, the presbytery of which the RUF campus minister is a member, and the RUF National and Regional Coordinators.
For Prayer: Ask the Lord to bless the Presbyterian Church in America and keep us faithful to our historic polity and more rigorously, zealously, and charitably to apply the biblical principles Christ has given to govern His Church.
IV. Personnel
Nominating Committee
The Report of the Nominating Committee is one of the Assembly’s few “orders of the day.” At this time dozens of men are elected to serve on the boards (committees) for the agencies of the Presbyterian Church in America as well as her Standing Judicial Commission and special committees.
These committees are responsible for ensuring the staff and agency coordinators execute the policies and priorities of the General Assembly. These committees recommend to the Assembly who will serve as Agency Coordinators (e.g. Covenant College President, MTW Coordinator, Stated Clerk, etc.).
As a Presbyterian communion, the heads of staff for our missionary and discipleship organizations (e.g. MTW, RUF) are not styled “Presidents” as in the case of many other faith communions, but “Coordinators.” This is because the heads of staff for the PCA committees are ministers of the General Assembly and not executives with broad powers. This is another way in which the grass-roots nature of the PCA is manifested.
Election of the Stated Clerk
The Administrative Committee annually recommends a candidate to the Assembly to serve as Stated Clerk. Frequently, this election is simply a formality with the current clerk receiving overwhelming reelection. There have been some exceptions, for example at the 1986 General Assembly there was much back and forth regarding the resignation of inaugural Stated Clerk Dr Morton H Smith.1
The current Stated Clerk’s tenure has not been without controversy. In 2021 there was objection to his continued service on the SJC while simultaneously serving as interim Stated Clerk; historically when a judge on the SJC is elected Stated Clerk, he resigns his position on the SJC. As interim clerk, however, TE Chapell continued to participate in the SJC until the Assembly elected him Stated Clerk at which point he did resign. But many brothers believed he should have resigned or abstained during his service as interim.
In 2022 there were many questions as to whether the Stated Clerk had been or continued to be a member of the “National Partnership,” a caucus group advocating for progressive causes within the PCA. TE Chapell denied ever having been a member of the now-defunct Partnership and while emails claim him as a member, there is no evidence he actually participated in the National Partnership.
In 2023 a New York church released an excerpt from a reference Stated Clerk Chapell gave to TE James Kessler, the founder-leader of the National Partnership; TE Chapell asserted Kessler was a “leader in the denomination, especially of those pastors who are ‘gospel centered.’” The reference given for such a polarizing figure caused many to wonder if those who disagreed with TE Kessler’s National Partnership vision for the PCA were not ‘gospel centered’ in the eyes of the Stated Clerk.
More recently there has been controversy regarding the ultra vires invitation issued by the Stated Clerk to David French. While TE Chapell has apologized for the controversy created, nonetheless some prominent pastors in the PCA have suggested the communication coming from the Stated Clerk’s office was “misleading” and the whole affair poorly handled.
The Administration Permanent Committee recommendation is currently to re-elect TE Bryan Chapell as clerk, but it remains to be seen whether the Committee of Commissioners will bring that recommendation to the floor or recommend the Assembly pursue other candidates who might be attended by less controversy.
Background Checks
The issue of Background Checks was discussed only briefly last year; it returns to the Assembly for consideration this year. There are numerous proposals (see OVs 6, 16, 17, 23 & 24). The proposals generally vary in three areas.
(1) With whom the background check is to be shared (e.g. a committee, the whole presbytery, multiple presbyteries).
(2) The specificity of the background check (e.g. some simply require a background check to be run or ordered by the presbytery whereas others explicitly specify the type of background check that must be conducted).
(3) How mandatory are background checks (e.g. some proposals provide an extraordinary clause that would allow the Court to waive the requirement of the background checks at its discretion).
It is likely these five overtures will be heavily edited by the Overtures Committee (OC) and a single proposal will make it to the Assembly floor with the other Overtures on this topic answered by reference to the OC’s chosen, best attempt.
However, there is heavy opposition to adding a constitutional requirement for background checks in the PCA. This opposition is not to background checks on principle, but to the Assembly mandating them rather than allowing Sessions and Presbyteries to adopt their own standing rules in this regard.
Others oppose these proposals because some states (e.g. California) have idiosyncratic laws regarding background checks connected to employment, which would make it difficult for a presbytery to navigate both civil and ecclesiastical requirements.
It seems the best course of action for the Assembly may be to simply recommend Presbyteries and Session implement background checks as fits their own contexts (see also Episode 23 of the WS Pod for an interview with RE Joshua Torrey the author of one of these proposals).
The ‘Jesus’ Calling Phenomenon
Do you know who the best selling PCA author is? Tim Keller? Bob Sproul? Kevin DeYoung? Nope. It’s Sarah Young; a Covenant Theological Seminary graduate and MTW Missionary. Her book ‘Jesus’ Calling (and the attendant merchandise) is massively popular in broad evangelicalism.
In her book, she writes daily statements and presents them as the words of Jesus. These aren’t words Jesus actually spoke, but her own words presented as his that she claims she heard him say to her in her quiet time.
TE Ben Inman submitted an overture to ask the Assembly to appoint a committee to study the impact and problematic nature of this work because of its popularity (45 Million copies sold) and its deeply troubling substance. TE Inman has written on this at the PCA Polity blog (see also Episode 28 of the WS Pod).
For Prayer: As the Assembly considers matters related to personnel and personalities, pray that truth and love will be magnified in our conversations. Ask God to raise up leaders for the PCA who will promote unity and peace as well as biblical fidelity and confessional integrity.
V. Procedure
Atheist Testimony
The issue of the greatest debate at the Memphis Assembly concerned whether to permit atheists to testify in Church Courts. Currently atheists, universalists, very young children, and the mentally incompetent are not permitted to testify in Church Courts. One of the recommendations of the PCA’s Study Committee on Abuse (DASA) was that atheists be permitted to testify in Church Courts.
The former chairman of the now-dissolved DASA Committee made an emotional appeal to last year’s Assembly urging the elders to change our constitution to admit atheists to Church Courts. The proposal was rejected last year by a 47-53% vote.
Overture 1 (revised)
Understandably, this year the issue has returned and was the subject of the first overture submitted, but withdrawn after it received significant criticism and replaced by a modified version.
Overture 1 (revised) removes the prohibition on atheist testimony, replaces the oath with a “solemn promise” for atheists, and grants unlimited discretion to a Church Court to determine whether to admit any potential witness.
The discretion given to the court is another fatal flaw in this proposal from Piedmont Triad Presbytery (PTP). Currently, courts may disqualify a witness based only on those four, narrow categories listed above. But if Overture 1 were to be adopted, a court could sustain an objection to a witness on the basis of anything (e.g. “she’s biased against my client” or “he’s done nothing but complain” or “he suffers from cognitive impairment” or “you see how she dresses…” or any number of issues wholly at the discretion of the court).
Even revised, the current version of Overture 1 seems to open a pandora’s box of unintended consequences for the PCA judicial process.
Overture 18
The Ohio Presbytery (TOP) submitted Overture 18, which seeks to correct some of the flaws contained in the PTP Overture. In a discussion with TE Jason Piland, the author of the Overture, he noted that some of the brothers in TOP are personally opposed to the principle of opening Church Courts to atheists, but desired for the Assembly to have a better option available for its consideration.
In summary, the TOP Overture simply declares all people are eligible witnesses and then leaves it to the Church court to judge witness credibility, as they would in any other situation. The TOP overture likewise provides a promise (instead of an oath) for the atheist.
Both Proposals Should be Rejected
While I appreciate the desire of the brothers to see that abusers are made to face ecclesiastical justice, I still believe both of these proposals should be rejected. I offer three reasons (briefly):
(1) Church Courts are for Church People. If a person is unwilling to swear an oath before God (Cf. Dt. 6:13), he should have no standing in a Court of the Lord Jesus Christ. If a person is unwilling to at least acknowledge and swear before God the Creator, the Church Courts should not give credence to that person’s delusions by allowing that person to make a special promise instead.
(2) This is a Solution in Search of a Problem. To date, in the history of Presbyterian Church Courts, there has been no case in which a person has not been convicted because the only witness to an offense (cf. BCO 29-1) was an atheist. If such a potential situation were to arise, there are other ways of admitting such evidence (e.g. material evidence, police reports, affidavits notarized by a civil authority, &c.) without making allowances for those who refuse to honor God as God (cf. Rom 1:19-21).
(3) The Church Must Defer to the Civil Authorities. The only likely instances in which atheist testimony might conceivably be needed would be ones in which the Laws of the Commonwealth have been violated in addition to God’s Law. In those instances, any trial by a Church court ought to wait until the conclusion of the civil (criminal) trial. At that point, the transcript of the trial, the jury instructions, and other official documents may become material evidence for the Church trial.
If a Church Court receives reports that offenses (BCO 29-1) have been committed that are also crimes (e.g. spousal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, tax evasion, embezzlement, &c.), then the first thing a responsible Church Court should do is not institute judicial process, but call the civil authorities. And this frees pastors and elders to do the work of shepherding both the Accused and any alleged victims.
For more discussion of the principles at play, see Episode 6 of the WS Pod with the inestimable Jay Bruce.
A Note Regarding “Abuse”
I am concerned the desire for these sorts of changes to our Constitution and Judicial Procedures fail to understand the distinction between the role of Caesar’s Courts versus that of Christ’s Courts. In cases of both high crimes and misdemeanors, the police are often far more capable of investigating and ensuring justice than the Church Courts (this is by Divine design). By remaining in our appropriate sphere, we can both support Caesar in his divine ministry and minister to the potential victims and the Accused.
In recent PCA Assemblies, the mere mention that “we need to do this to prevent abuse” or “to take a stand against abuse” seemed to carry the day regarding many judicial changes. We even removed our statute of limitations on that basis (see the change made to BCO 32-20).
Last year, I was concerned the Assembly was going to continue to merely “react” to the emotional appeals and hypothetical claims of abuse rather than solemnly and thoughtfully consider whether the recommendations are wise changes to our judicial procedure or flow more from a desire for positive headlines.
I was grateful the Memphis Assembly stopped simply reacting to emotional appeals hypotheticals about abuse and (albeit narrowly) upheld our historic polity and principles regarding judicial process.
Representatives for Accused
Tennessee Valley Presbytery proposes revising our judicial rules to allow an Accused person to have a representative from anywhere in the PCA. I have written about this proposal for the PCA Polity blog. This would bring our procedure closer to what is already practiced in the OPC, the RPCNA, and the ARP.
Currently, an Accused’s counsel may come only from within the local church if the trial is before a Session or within the Presbytery if a minister or on appeal. Only at the General Assembly level may any communicant represent an Accused person.
There are concerns this change might allow a few “canonical lawyers” to run roughshod over small Sessions and Presbyteries. RE Jim Eggert explains these objections more thoroughly in his article on PCA Polity.
But I believe the cause of justice (which is Christ’s cause) should make us willing to expand an Accused person’s pool of representation as widely as possible so he or she can make the best possible defense.
Minister Transfers
Northern California Presbytery (Overture 2) proposes somewhat lengthy changes to clarify the way ministers transfer from one presbytery to another. The length of the proposed change should not be intimidating, however, since this overture simply seeks to clarify what already should be practiced by all presbyteries, i.e. a minister transferring to a new presbytery must restate any differences with the Westminster Standards he has and then the new presbytery will judge those differences in accordance with the Constitution.
This is an important clarifying change for the sake of consistency and charity (as well as clarity). It’s important when a man is examined that he sets before the presbytery, in good faith, every single difference he has with the Constitution. This allows brothers to dwell in unity and without fear and suspicion.
For more on this, see Episode 19 of the WS Pod with TE Alex Ford.
Systematic Judicial Process Reform
Numerous proposals to the General Assembly have come out of Central Indiana Presbytery; some coming from the Court herself and others from a particular session within the presbytery.
Overture 4 seeks to impose a moratorium on changes to the rules of discipline and instead appoint a special committee to completely overhaul the rules of discipline for the PCA. Overtures 19 and 20 come from an Indianapolis Session and propose broad changes to the Rules of Discipline themselves, but the Constitutional Business Committee has studied them and considered them both to have significant flaws.
It is likely all most, if not all, of these overtures will be referred back to Indiana. One podcaster recently noted many of these overtures seem to be reactions to a fairly infamous trial that occurred in the presbytery recently.
For Prayer: As the Assembly considers our judicial process, ask God to bless our deliberations and grant us a love for justice. Pray we will be efficient as we consider and debate these overtures on the floor. Ask also for God’s special blessing on the Overtures Committee as the brothers there try to perfect the language of the overtures and prepare the Assembly to consider these matters.
See the discussion of the 14th General Assembly in David Hall’s Irony and the PCA.