PCA News & Views

A few thoughts on PCA BCO Amendment Item 5: Item 5 is currently making its way through the PCA Presbyteries. It passed at last year’s General Assembly with a vote of 1443-507. This amendment to the Book of Church Order would require Ruling Elder and Deacon officers to state their confessional differences up front, mirroring what is already required for Teaching Elders. So far 50 Presbyteries have voted in favor and 25 against. It needs 8 more votes in favor in order to come before the next General Assembly for a final vote to make it constitutional. There are two main reasons, in my estimation, for why this should pass. 1). This amendment makes explicit what is already implied in the Book of Church Order. The BCO already requires RE’s and Deacons to make known to their Session any differences they may have with the Westminster Standards subsequent to their ordination (BCO 24-6). This is also what Teaching Elders are required to do (BCO 21-5). Yet the BCO makes it explicit that Teaching Elders also must state their differences up front before they are ordained (BCO 21-4). It would not make any sense to require a TE to make known differences that arise after his ordination without first inquiring whether he had any prior to his ordination. Yet, this is exactly how our BCO currently reads for RE’s and Deacons. A question for those who disagree with item 5 is why we require RE’s and Deacons to state differences subsequent to them becoming officers when we do not require this in order for them to become officers in the first place? In order to maintain consistency with the offices of the church, we should pass this amendment so RE’s and Deacons are required to state any confessional differences up front before their ordination. 2). This amendment protects the confessional fidelity of our church. Many may not realize that members of PCA churches are not required to hold to the doctrine of the church. Thus, technically speaking, a person could join a PCA church and disagree with the majority of the Westminster Standards (though we may question the wisdom of an individual joining a church of which they have nothing in common theologically, it is still permissible). Because of this, it is vital that the officers in our churches hold to the Westminster Standards. If both the laity and the officers reject certain doctrines in our Standards, there is a much stronger possibility of compromise and theological corruption. Thus, it is vital that men state up front what kind of differences they have with the Standards so the Session can assess whether the differences are out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine. Item 5 needs to pass.