The Role of the Laity in the PCA’s Battle Against the Nations

The Role of the Laity in the PCA’s Battle Against the Nations

Introduction

Those of us in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) have seen denomination after denomination, including our previous denomination—the PCUS, succumb to the attacks of raging nations (Psalm 2) on the church. And no matter what the points of attack have been, be it justification by faith or the social gospel, the underlying failure in all the church’s defeats has been the failure to stand on the authority of Scripture.

Strangely enough, many of the greatest failures of the church to stand on the authority of Scripture have been by those denominations that claimed the most authority for the church itself. This, of course, was the problem with a Catholic Church that elevated its authority over God’s Word. And, thus, over God Himself.

Many other denominations that have fallen in recent decades, Episcopalians, Methodists, and some of the Lutherans, also have had a hierarchical polity focused on the authority within the church rather than on the authority of God. Even the PCUS, with a more representative polity, fell into an autocratic mode with centralized authority residing in a few.

As Presbyterians, we affirm that our form of church polity is the biblical design for Christ’s church and “essential to the perfection of the church” (Taylor, Presbyterianism, 95-96). Part of that biblical design is the representational, grassroots nature of the PCA with wisdom flowing both up and down. It “is representative because the people choose their spiritual leaders to govern the church (its members and officers) on the local, regional, and national levels. We practice mutual accountability and discipline through our representative government” (Taylor, Uniqueness, 2). The PCA’s grassroots polity was developed in the context of our founders experiencing “a decline in theological orthodoxy, a decline in discipline, and an abuse of ecclesiastical power” in the PCUS. As such, our founders made “a deliberate decision not to have a hierarchal, coercive system” (3).

Yet it is unclear whether the grassroots nature of the PCA is holding up very well under attack as we debate the six days of creation, LGBTQ+ Christianity, the Federal Vision, racism, etc. The attacks are no doubt part of God’s plan for the perfection of the church catholic. The question is whether the PCA is becoming gold or dross. In other words, are the decisions being made by the PCA’s General Assembly maturing the church or leading to surrender?

Whatever direction the General Assembly is headed, it is not clear that that direction reflects the beliefs of the majority of PCA elders and members. As L. Roy Taylor, the stated clerk of the PCA, notes, “as a representative system, the PCA system is susceptible to being manipulated by a minority that knows the system, is willing to participate in the system, capitalizes on the most influential aspects of the system, and is willing to be involved for the long term” (Uniqueness, p. 6).

This context helps frame why widespread, spirited debate among the members (laity) of the PCA, conducted it in a manner pleasing to Christ, is important for shaping the future of the PCA.

As laity, we are limited in our ability to change the PCA through its official structure, e.g., the church courts, General Assembly, etc. So, whether we think the fire of the world’s attacks on the church is currently turning the PCA into gold or dross, it is important that we participate in the maturation and purification of the church catholic through the polity of our local church. Which means, in part, showing the world how spirited debate and representation under our local, representative church government is supposed to work; which will fully work only if elders embrace the PCA’s grassroots design. And both elders and laity can also show the culture how the world is supposed to work by delving into Scripture to guide not just the church and our personal piety but also how we approach civil government, culture, science, and every sphere of creation in which we operate.

The Pleasure and Importance of Spirited Debate

I love engaging in spirited discussion. I love doing this in my work and in my church and in my general community. One reason I love spirited debate is that it has a long history of moving us fallen creatures towards a better understanding of God’s truth about the world. While the current tone of the political environment may cause one to wonder if this is the case, I would say that political debate throughout the centuries has brought humanity into a much greater understanding of why God ordained government and how it should function. And this debate which has enlightened has taken place not just among our government officials ordained by God to rule over us, but among us hoi polloi as well.

Similarly, spirited debate among the laity is also one of the means of the development of church doctrine and the maturation of the church. This is certainly the case with Presbyterians as heirs of the Reformation and its connectional, representative, and even grassroots (in the PCA) form of government. In fact, as Presbyterians we believe the intentional design of Presbyterian polity is “essential to the perfection of the church” (Taylor, Presbyterianism, 96).

The Battle for the World

As we discuss the importance of the laity’s role in the PCA’s debates over issues of theology, governance, and the culture, we should note that there certainly is plenty to debate these days. For in case you haven’t noticed, we are in the midst of a spiritual battle as the nations rage against the reign of Christ our King as He is making all things new and putting all his enemies under his feet.

Of course, this battle isn’t just taking place in the atheistic culture; it is taking place against and within the church. Whether or not Nicholas actually struck Arius centuries ago, the Council of Nicaea was front and center in this battle within the church. The Reformation highlighted the fact that much of the church was losing the battle. Similarly, we need not look far today to see many denominations that have seemingly lost the battle with the culture–such was the realization of those who reluctantly founded the PCA (“the PCA was started primarily through the efforts of ruling elders”) in the face of “a decline in theological orthodoxy, a decline in discipline, and an abuse of ecclesiastical power” (Taylor, Uniqueness, 3) in the PCUS.

However, while Reformed believers understand that this spiritual battle is taking place everywhere because it takes place even within believers, it seems that it is not obvious to some in the PCA the extent to which it is being waged within our denomination.

History records that when the church has failed to discern where the battle lines are drawn around doctrinal controversy, or even that there is a controversy to battle over, it is because it has failed to believe the Word of God, to use it to understand the nature of the battle, and to guide how the battle should be engaged. When the church has failed to stand up against those who deny the authority of scripture, the result is that the church generally has become more like the world, instead of the church making the world more like Christ.

The PCA was founded by those who decided the battle for the authority of scripture had been lost within the Presbyterian Church in the United States. This account shows that the PCA’s founders thought they would be free from such battles over doctrine once they left the PCUS:

Having been in on the ground floor of the PCA as a “founding son” in 1973, I think I shared the expectation of many who were part of the nascent PCA in thinking that once the new denomination was  launched we would be free from doctrinal controversy, that we would be able to devote ourselves to  positive endeavors, and that PCA churches would rally to the support of the young ecclesiastical body. In retrospect, thirty-six years later, it is evident that such was not a realistic expectation. (Taylor, Issues, 1)

Hardly. The truth is, one needs a scorecard today to keep up with the challenges and controversies within the PCA that are often debated at its annual General Assembly: the Revoice Conference and LGBTQ+ Christians, the roles and relationships of men and women in the church and society, the Federal Vision, race and Christ’s ministry of reconciliation, the meaning and historicity of Genesis 1-3, and a mishmash of the role of government, biblical justice, and the gospel often referred to by the terms social justice and social gospel.

The battle over many of these issues has been taking place since at least the early 2000s when the PCA General Assembly adopted overtures on the days of creation and racial repentance. The more recent adoption of several overtures by the General Assembly (GA) and the deafening silence over the Revoice conference have a sizable minority of elders in the PCA concerned about our denomination’s direction. Of course, the majority of the elders (at least those that regularly attend GA) are generally content with our direction. It should be noted, though, that the coalitions on these issues don’t always fit into neat packages. In any case, there are those on all sides of the discussion, both inside and outside the PCA, who are concerned that the PCA may be going the way of the PCUS toward another denominational split.

A Brief Statement on the Role of the Laity in the Maturity of the Church

Since most members of the church are non-ordained laity, what should our role be in these discussions and the battle over the authority of Scripture?

Let me start with a definition of the laity. For the purposes of this email, I’ll be using laity to refer to non-elders, i.e., those who do not have authority to rule in the church. So, my use of laity will include deacons.

Next, how can the laity take part in the maturity of the church within the PCA?

One way is to take part in theological debates. In my church, for instance, an email to our “men’s list” a few years back started a significant discussion over the days of creation. It began with a spirited debate over email, which in turn led to another spirited debate hosted by one of our elders in his home. The next step was a semester-long Sunday evening class to examine the different schools of thought on the issue. The result was a church body much more informed on the issue and members better equipped to defend their positions and engage the culture on a very important issue, and doing so within the confines of loving their neighbors.

Another way for the laity to participate is in the governance of the church. No man can become an elder or deacon in a PCA church without being elected by the congregation. In most cases, those men are nominated by the session. But the most significant role played by a congregation in church governance is the calling of a new pastor. This is, in fact, the only decision a congregation makes on its own without leadership from the session. When my church went through this process several years ago, spirited discussion and debate by the entire congregation—not just the search committee—played an important and necessary part of the process in the case of both candidates nominated for senior pastor.

I’d suggest that both instances, and others, are emblematic of the representative, grassroots nature of the governance of the PCA. And they demonstrate the importance of the role of the laity in the theological and political debates taking place in Redeemer and the PCA today. They also demonstrate the importance of diversity of thought within the bounds of orthodoxy within the PCA.

A Review of Presbyterian Polity

As previously noted, “Presbyterians, from the Reformation forward, have not regarded Presbyterian polity as necessary to the existence of the church, but as essential to the perfection of the church” (Taylor, Presbyterianism, 95-96). Because it is not necessary, we can accept members of other churches with Episcopal, congregational, and other forms of government as members of the church catholic and thus commune with them. Yet we would also say that those churches, because they do not have a biblically based polity, lack the essential help that Presbyterian government provides in the areas of doctrinal fidelity, mutual accountability, cooperative ministry, and checks and balances (Taylor, 96-98).

We reformed Presbyterians have historically regarded the marks of the church to be 1) the faithful preaching of the Word, 2) the proper administration of the sacraments, and 3) the practice of discipline. And we designed the polity of the church to help safeguard them: “Presbyterian Church Government is representative because the people choose their spiritual leaders to govern the church (its members and officers) on the local, regional, and national levels. We practice mutual accountability and discipline through our representative government” (Taylor, Uniqueness, 2).

This polity safeguards the marks of the church in three ways. First, there is a two-way flow of wisdom in the church from top to bottom and vice versa. Second, there is accountability of those lower in the church to those higher up in the church; members of the local church are accountable to their elders, the elders are accountable to the presbytery, and the presbyteries are accountable to the general assembly. Third, those higher in the church are accountable to those lower in the church and to other churches around them. These two systems of accountability work differently, however.

The accountability of those lower to those higher in the church is generally through discipline, through teaching, exhorting, counseling, and in the church courts. Faithful Christians who join the church but at some point err in what they believe or in what they do can be subject to discipline in the courts. Accountability of those higher in the church to those lower works differently. Beyond the election process, the laity has no authority to exercise discipline over the elders in the church when they err individually or collectively. But the laity can play a role by encouraging local church elders to use the Overture process to call out to the PCA General Assembly when it heads in the wrong direction, or even when it errs. Because err it will. “Reformed Christians hold that the church is simultaneously and always holy yet imperfect, wise but not infallible” (Taylor, Presbyterianism, 96). Christian laity should expect that their church will ere and not be afraid to point out when it does.

How exactly does the accountability of the higher to the lower work in the PCA? Let me first note some design features of the PCA’s representational polity. Because it is based on voting, it is ruled in majoritarian, democratic fashion. But because it is based on a constitution, i.e., the Westminster Confession and parts of the BCO, and laws, i.e., the BCO, the rights of the minorities within the local and larger church are protected. And because it is based on elections of elders by the laity, there is an upward flow to the accountability. This is reflected, for instance, in the requirement that the GA can (generally) act only in response to overtures from the presbyteries and that those overtures must then be approved by a majority of the presbyteries. And also in the ability of any local church to dissolve its ties to the PCA and take its property with them (It might be noted here that the last two GA’s have adopted overtures that hinder the ability of churches to dissolve their ties to the PCA; the first failed to be confirmed by the presbyteries, the second is still being considered by churches). The PCA really is a grassroots church; subject, of course, to the downward flow of accountability from Scripture.

Taylor describes in part the conditions under which the polity of the PCA came about: “the PCA originated out of Southern Presbyterianism, which by the nature of the case had an aversion to centralized authority and had a strong emphasis on authority in the lower levels of the Church” (Uniqueness, 1). I’d suggest that the cultural setting in which the PCA was founded helped its founders more clearly see the Biblical design of the church.

At this point, we are ready to connect the upward (without forgetting the downward) flow of accountability in the PCA with the vow that each member takes to “study the peace and purity of the church” (BCO). The connection of these two indicates that the laity have a mutual, though different (elders “promise to strive for the purity, peace, unity and edification of the Church” (BCO)), responsibility with the elders to study the peace and purity of the church. Given these considerations, do we laity, at the bottom rung of the ladder and desirous of “submit[ing] … to the government and discipline of the church,” have a role to play in striving for, rather than just studying, the peace and purity of the church?

I suggest we do. Unlike elders, we are not required to strive for peace and purity in our membership vows. But the polity certainly—and I think intentionally—pulls us in that direction. The first way in which this happens is when we vote and thus select those who will lead us and represent us, i.e., rule us. (By the way, is any of this sounding familiar? As I have studied this, I have been struck by the similarities of the PCA’s polity and the structure of American government. Which should be no surprise given the common reformational and Puritan roots of our nation and our church). But in order to vote responsibly, we should study the peace and purity of the church. We should read the Bible. We should study doctrine. We should make ourselves aware of the issues in the church and the culture that are affecting the kingdom of God. And we should get to know the men whom we are going to vote on and the issues that they occasionally bring to us. And pray for clarity whether God is calling them to the office on which we are voting.

The Representational, Grassroots Nature of PCA Polity in Action

Electing officers and approval a few decisions of the session are where the laity’s voting responsibility stops; we don’t have a vote on the issues before the various church courts. We do not vote on overtures in presbyteries or in the General Assembly. While we can bring our concerns to some extent before the church courts, we cannot vote on them.

So, this point is where the representative nature of our polity kicks into gear. In this light, we should participate in individual and group discussion and debate about the issues. This could take part in various venues. First in the home. And in home fellowship groups. In Bible studies. In Sunday school classes. In congregational meetings. And in more modern forms of communications such as newspapers, TV, radio, newspapers, and the Internet. Always, of course, while keeping the second great commandment of loving our neighbors as ourselves.

We must do this remembering that this is an integral part of the perfection of the church. We don’t just hold forth when there is something we disagree with. We do this as part of developing a deeper understanding of God’s Word, pursuing our sanctification and the sanctification of the church through informing the development of the doctrine of the church. Because of this, and because we are ruled by elders, the discussion and debate of the laity is something that church elders should incorporate in their deliberations over their understanding of Scripture.

This is important because the involvement of the laity helps ensure that the councils and courts of the PCA reflect the wisdom of the entire church since, “as a representative system, the PCA system is susceptible to being manipulated by a minority that knows the system, is willing to participate in the system, capitalizes on the most influential aspects of the system, and is willing to be involved for the long term” (Taylor, Uniqueness, 6).

This doesn’t mean I am espousing majoritarian, or congregational, rule; it is just that representative government often fails because it becomes insular are ignores or dismisses wisdom available to it from those it represents. God designed representational church government to provide for a two-way flow of accountability and wisdom for good reason.

As I have noted, the representative nature of church government is not unlike how God has designed civil government. God designed both church and civil government and officeholders in both the church and the civil government are not only elected to be where they are but are called by God to be in the positions of authority they hold.

So, what do representatives in civil government do as part of their roles as officeholders? They seek input from their constituents. Of course, some seek input only to help ensure they get reelected. But they should be doing it because they are representatives in a representative form of government and they have been placed there by God to represent the people that elected them. I think this same dynamic captured in the design of the PCA’s polity. While our rulers’ first allegiance is to God (which, by the way, is also the first allegiance of all elected government officials–Christian or not), they also have a responsibility to listen to their constituents, i.e., the members of their church, as they strive for the purity, peace, unity, and edification of the Church.

Input from the laity on the general nature of the church and on specific questions before the church is part of the perfection of the church because there is wisdom to be gained through the process. That is why the PCA’s polity is representational and provides opportunities by which the elders of our church can (and do) both encourage discussion within the church and receive the wisdom to be gained through those discussions.

Sessions in the PCA and presbyteries should provide numerous opportunities for the two-way flow of wisdom with the flock. They should communicate through email and newsletters. And hold meetings in homes through the church to reach out and listen to the congregation. And hold congregational meetings. And establish committees on which members of a congregation can serve and communicate with the session. And welcome congregations to attend and speak to session meetings.

The responsibility here is two way–just like the flow of accountability in the church is two way. Members that feel called to go beyond the study of peace and purity should make sure they actively take part in their church community by actively taking part in the structure the church has built to shepherd them and receive input from them. Elders should likewise ensure that the structures are in place for the congregation to partake in, that the congregation is taking part, and that the flow of accountability is two way–shepherding and discipling one way and encouraging and informing the other.

A Final Point

Our only hope in this battle is Jesus Christ. We were given a kingship by which we were to rule over the world. But in our pride, that was not enough for us. We didn’t want to just rule, but to be the Ruler. Because of this, Christ has taken our role for us. He will complete the work that we failed to complete. Yet He still has work for us to do. If we are to do it properly, we must mine His Word and apply it to every sphere of our lives. Did you know that the story of Joseph and his brothers helps us better understand both civil government and economics? It does. Genesis 1 to 3 also has much to guide biologists, cosmologists, and climatologists in the pursuit of science. I’d suggest even the hairdressers and PR professionals amongst us can benefit professionally from a deeper examination of Scripture. Whatever roles we have, whatever careers we have (or have had), we have not gone to Scripture enough to guide us in developing a vision and path for our work and roles. Part of what our spirited discussions can accomplish, then, is to help us grow in maturity in the application of God’s Word to every facet of our lives.

Conclusion

God has prepared His church as a bride adorned for her Husband. The bride took part in this too, “His Bride has made herself ready.” Though I believe that this quote from Revelation refers first to our repentance and confession of Christ as our Lord and Savior, by the grace of God, we are all very aware of the perfection each of us still needs through sanctification and therefore the church needs as well. This is evident in the surrender of many denominations in the face of the culture’s assault against the authority of Scripture and in the debates we are having in the PCA. As Presbyterians, we affirm that our form of church polity is the biblical design for Christ’s church and “essential to the perfection of the church.” That being the case, it is also essential that we do our best, in Christ, to ensure the polity of the church works as God designed it. Which means, in part, showing the world how representational government is supposed to work as we engage in the battle for the world, being fruitful and multiplying, making disciples, and exercising dominion under the reign of Jesus Christ our King.

I’ve quoted from four works in this article. They are:

The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church of America

Issues Facing PCA by L. Roy Taylor

“Presbyterianism” by L. Roy Taylor, Chapter 2 in Who Runs the Church, edited by Paul Engle

The Uniqueness of PCA Polity by L. Roy Taylor, the Stated Clerk of the PCA