I am trying to wrap my head around the proposed change to BCO 34-1, as approved by the 53rd General Assembly and sent to the Presbyteries for consent of two-thirds of the Presbyteries.1 While I understand the attempt to correct a broken portion of the BCO, I am not sure this amendment does not raise additional concerns that need to be addressed before ratifying it into our BCO. We might be fixing one portion of the BCO while creating more problems, particularly today. I am not immutable, nor infallible. I welcome people's thoughts and counterpoints.

I see the concern behind the proposal. A Presbytery may fail to act, and the Church needs some constitutional recourse when that happens. My concern is that this proposed remedy may work better for public false teaching than for certain matters of Christian character, especially heinous sins by Teaching Elders that may not be broadly public. In those cases, the proposed amendment may unintentionally push sensitive matters into the public sphere in order to make the process work.

Disclaimer: Please do not think I am merely upset about my overture being changed. If I took things personally, I would be a very bitter person. However, I do believe the amended overture creates several concerns.

I have five concerns with the proposal as written, some more major than others, but all valid concerns on their own right:

1. The term public scandal (currently in our BCO but written in a different time)

2. Inclusion of BCO 31-2 Language

3. The term ‘decline’

4. Twenty- Percent

5. Shall (in this instance)

1. Vague Definition of Public Scandal

Ramsay defines scandal as “any flagrant public offence or practice bringing disgrace on the Church.”2 This definition has been used several times in SJC cases.

In Case 2019-08, a concurring opinion states: “For an offense to be a ‘case of scandal’ it would need to be an offense that is known to the broader public and, unless adjudicated promptly, would bring public disgrace on the Church. And thanks to technology, an offense could become a case of broad, public scandal much more quickly in 2020 than in 1879.”3

In Case 2020-14, the SJC uses the same reasoning: “For an offense to be a ‘case of scandal’ it would need to be an offense that is known to the broader public and, unless adjudicated promptly, would bring public disgrace on the Church.”4

In Case 2022-04, a dissenting opinion states: “For matter to be a ‘case of scandal’ it would need to be something known to the public and, unless adjudicated promptly, would continue to bring public disgrace (scandal) on the Church. A case of scandal involves something ‘causing general public outrage.’” The dissent also adds, “And while a case of scandal often involves shameful behavior, shameful behavior does not always become a case of scandal. Frequently there is alleged behavior unknown to the broader public.”5

Ramsay does provide the adjective “flagrant” before “public offence,” but this does not solve the problem entirely, as “public offenses are those which are notorious” (BCO 29-4). Public scandal, therefore, requires more than the gravity of the sin itself. It also involves public notoriety and public disgrace upon the Church.

This is my concern. Public scandal has much to do with the public nature and public reception of the matter. It is not merely the weight of the accusation against the accused. The public response then becomes one of the factors that could require the GA to take up a case. That may make sense in certain instances, especially with public false teaching, but it becomes more difficult when we are dealing with private heinous sins, particularly sins involving vulnerable people.

A private sin may be heinous according to Westminster Larger Catechism 151, and yet not be a “public scandal” in the technical sense. On the other hand, something may be publicly scandalous because partial or even false information spreads quickly. Public outrage does not itself establish guilt, nor should it be the mechanism for elevating something to a higher court.

2. Inclusion of BCO 31-2

My understanding is that this portion of the BCO is intended to apply when an insulated Presbytery errs and fails to act appropriately. This is especially understandable in the case of false teaching. False teaching, by its nature, is often public, and therefore, a 20% threshold may be more achievable because many people could have access to the details of the public teaching.

However, when dealing with Christian character (BCO 31-2), the evidence is often not public. In some cases, the allegations may involve private offenses and vulnerable people. Several concerns arise from including this kind of matter within the proposed mechanism.

First, people may begin to think this is the next step, when filing charges may actually be the more appropriate next step. In a judicial case, both parties can present evidence, witnesses can be examined, and the court can properly adjudicate the matter.

Second, people may see a Presbytery failing to find a strong presumption of guilt as a way of erring. But “strong presumption of guilt” is a weighty term, and the failure to find it does not automatically mean the Presbytery erred. The Presbytery may have carried out its duties under BCO 31-2. This does not mean the accused is innocent in every possible sense.6 Additional evidence might later be provided in a trial that the Presbytery did not have access to during its investigation. But the failure to find a strong presumption of guilt is not, by itself, proof that the Presbytery has refused to act or erred.

Third, if people seek to apply this proposed provision to cases of private heinous sin, the only way to bring the matter to the level of public scandal may be to force it into the public sphere. Deliberately changing it from a private offense to a public offense. This does not necessarily require bad actors. But to get 20% of Presbyteries to vote on such a request would require many Presbyterians to hear enough of the story to believe they can cast an informed vote.

We are not in the same world we once were. The twenty-first century has brought many complex issues into the church. Even at the most recent General Assembly, one speech dissuaded many commissioners who had originally voted in favor of an overture regarding minority reports from the SJC. The concern raised was real, but the issue is still present in our BCO: sending the whole record of the case to every clerk of Session. The proposed amendment only sought to move the transmission to a digital format. Nevertheless, we are now more alert to and aware of privacy concerns, including those affecting victims. The problem was that the overture sought to fix one issue in the BCO, but in doing so might have created another, possibly a bigger one.

Major Concern

I see this provision as being aimed at two kinds of matters: first, false teaching; and second, heinous sins of Teaching Elders. Often, heinous sins by Teaching Elders are personal offenses involving vulnerable people. In those cases, the practical recourse under this proposed amendment may be to make the matter public.

BCO 40-5 is not a good recourse in many of these cases because it deals with the court rather than directly with the man. Also, reviewing such matters under BCO 40-5 is difficult unless the court errs in a grossly unconstitutional manner. That method is neither especially helpful nor expedient in many cases. While I think it might be possible, serving on CRPR has made clear to me that we are not an investigative body; we review records and reports. Presbyteries often do not record that they are deliberately erring or insulating a Teaching Elder. BCO 40-5 addresses the erring process, not the sinful person. There would need to be a clear error by the lower court for the matter to be referred to the SJC (BCO 39-3.3).

If BCO 34-1 becomes the mechanism for dealing with these matters, then heinous sins may be forced into the public sphere because the GA must act.

3. Declines to Indict

The new proposal also includes the phrase “declines to indict.” This word is significant. In ordinary usage, and I think also in legal usage, “declines” generally implies an active choice not to do something after the matter has been presented for action. In other words, the court has considered the matter and has officially decided not to indict. This appears to be the reading in the other two instances where "decline" is used in our BCO (BCO 20-10 and 24-7): a court may, by a formal vote of the court, decline to carry out a particular action.

This seems to limit the provision to cases where a Presbytery has formally declined to exercise its jurisdiction by officially voting not to indict. That is different from “failure to indict,” which could include action, inaction, inability, delay, neglect, or avoidance.

Therefore, I could see a possible argument that the proposed language does not reach the very problem it is attempting to address, shifting the absurdity from the definition of action to the definition of decline. A Presbytery may not have “declined to indict” at all. It may simply have failed to take any action to that effect.

4. Twenty-Percent

As mentioned, 20% may seem like a reasonable threshold for public false teaching, but I am afraid it has several problems. Currently, 20% would require 18 Presbyteries, but if the PCA continues at its current growth rate, by 2073, it would require about 34 Presbyteries. Why should the denomination's size matter when a Presbytery has failed to act? Why should it become more difficult for the General Assembly to take up original jurisdiction in important matters? Once again, public consensus seems to be the guiding factor rather than the Presbytery's failure to indict a man.

First, 20% creates a very high jurisdictional threshold. I do not want to confuse the evidentiary standard for charges with the jurisdictional mechanism for GA original jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Apostle Paul says he would not allow a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. If three Presbyteries contact the Presbytery of a Teaching Elder regarding false teaching or heinous sin and can provide witnesses or evidence, that Presbytery should begin the process and, when appropriate, appoint a prosecutor. If three Presbyteries cannot provide sufficient witnesses or evidence, then there may be no need for a trial. But 20% is a much broader mechanism, and it may require far more public discussion than is wise or necessary.

Second, 20% may muddy the waters in higher review and control, and before the SJC. One in five Presbyteries would need to have some meaningful details of the case in order to be informed and able to vote. This may also raise practical questions about SJC eligibility or participation, given that many Presbyteries have already debated and voted on the request. I do not want to overstate this point, but it should be clarified before adoption.

Third, a 20% threshold risks turning a judicial remedy into a denominational campaign. Instead of keeping the matter principally within the courts of the Church, it requires broad public agitation among the Presbyteries. Little good can come from many people discussing events and details they do not know well. This may be somewhat more defensible in cases of public false teaching, where the teaching itself is already before the Church. But in matters of Christian character, the process can easily become governed by sound bites, public pressure, and partial narratives rather than by careful judicial consideration. Getting 20% of the Church concerned about a matter is not especially difficult; one needs only look at X on any given day. Even when men act in good faith, the process can become more like a caucus than a court. Worse, even a failed attempt could bring disunity into the denomination. If fifteen Presbyteries discuss the matter and vote to ask the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction, but the request fails to reach the 20% threshold, the effort has still forced a matter into public view that should have remained within a more limited judicial process. Thus, the very mechanism intended to address the scandal may end up creating or amplifying the scandal without ever producing judicial action.

Fourth, briefly, a 20% threshold may appear to be a safeguard, but it can also communicate institutional distrust. It assumes that a smaller number of Presbyteries cannot be trusted to recognize a serious failure to act, and that the courts of the Church cannot be trusted to distinguish between legitimate judicial concern and factional agitation. Ordained officers are called and vowed to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity, peace, and unity of the Church. Yet this proposal may unintentionally make public consensus, rather than ordered trust in the courts of the Church and her ordained officers, the controlling principle.

5. General Assembly Shall

The “shall” is significant. It is a must, and that is dangerous in this instance. If the qualifications of the provision are fulfilled, then the General Assembly has to assume original jurisdiction. It cannot simply say the request is out of order if all the stated conditions have been met.

The proposed amendment is simple. BCO 34-1 would read:

“Process against a minister shall be entered before the Presbytery of which he is a member. However, if the Presbytery finds no strong presumption of guilt or otherwise declines to indict in doctrinal cases or cases of public scandal and twenty percent (20%) of the other Presbyteries request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction (to first receive and initially hear and determine), the General Assembly shall do so.”

The structure seems to be:

1. Presbytery does one of two things:
   a. Presbytery finds no strong presumption of guilt; or
   b. Presbytery otherwise declines to indict.

2. The matter concerns:
   a. doctrinal cases; or
   b. cases of public scandal.

3. Twenty percent of the other Presbyteries request the GA to assume original jurisdiction.

4. The General Assembly shall do so.

That is a strong mechanism. My concern is not merely that it allows GA to act, but that it appears to require GA to act once the conditions are met.

Hypothetical Situation 1

A Teaching Elder is accused of a sin, and a well-meaning observer requests a BCO 31-2 investigation. The Presbytery performs its due diligence and investigates the man with great discretion. They demand a satisfactory explanation from him regarding the report affecting his Christian character. The Presbytery finds no strong presumption of guilt.

However, on the internet, there is a group of people who have heard of this initial accusation and are horrified to learn that the Presbytery did not find a strong presumption of guilt. Many people may not know what this term means or understand the other avenues available within the BCO, but a group has begun using this newly revised section. They do not have all the information, but they have enough to know what he was accused of. They get 18 Presbyteries to request original jurisdiction. Now the SJC has to take this matter up.

Hypothetical Situation 2

A Teaching Elder acts in a heinous manner toward a member in the church he serves. It does not rise to the level of a criminal offense, but even if it did, a criminal offense would not stop the church court from acting appropriately in its sphere. There are only a few people who know about it. The member speaks to another member of Presbytery, and no one takes any action. A request for an investigation is made. On the books, the Presbytery appears to have handled the matter appropriately. The injured member may have limited or uncertain procedural remedies, especially if the relevant action was taken by Presbytery rather than by the member’s own Session. Maybe charges could be brought.

The men who should be protecting the souls of the sheep are failing to act. They are neglecting their duty. The recourse available to this member may then be to use BCO 34-1, which would require the member to tell the story, or allow the story to be told, to 18 groups of men so that they might have an informed vote to hold this Teaching Elder to account for his sin.

In both hypotheticals, the errors become clear. While these examples may be extreme, they are not impossible. BCO 34-1 exists because a Presbytery has failed to do what it should have done. In my opinion, the proposed changes do not provide a sufficient solution for our age. They may help with public false teaching, but they do not adequately address other cases.

This provision either needs to be limited to cases of public false teaching, or it needs to be reconsidered to account for heinous sins by a Teaching Elder without making public opinion or public exposure the necessary mechanism.

Conclusion

The concern addressed by this amendment is real. A Presbytery may fail to act, and the Church must have a constitutional remedy when doctrine or scandal threatens the peace and purity of the whole Church. But the present proposal does not adequately distinguish public doctrinal error from private heinous sin, nor does it protect sensitive matters from being pushed into the public sphere.

For that reason, I believe Presbyteries should decline to consent to this amendment and seek a clearer, safer, and more carefully tailored solution.

Postscript

Many people have one instance in mind when we think about BCO 34-1: the issue that arose after the Revoice Conference. While this is important to consider, we also need to consider other scenarios that could arise.

Three suggested amendments:

I. “Process against a minister shall be entered before the Presbytery of which he is a member. However, if the Presbytery fails to indict in doctrinal cases or cases of public scandal and twenty percent (20%) of the other Presbyteries request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction (to first receive and initially hear and determine), the General Assembly shall do so.”7

II. “Process against a minister shall be initiated before the Presbytery of which he is a member. However, if a Presbytery receives a report from another Presbytery concerning the false teaching or heinous sin (WLC 151) of a teaching elder under its jurisdiction and fails to indict, the Presbytery that submitted the report may request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction; that is, to initially receive, hear, and determine the matter. The General Assembly shall do one of the following, upon the request of five (5) Presbyteries concerning the same matter: 1) assume original jurisdiction; or 2) require the original Presbytery to indict the teaching elder and submit a record of the case to the General Assembly for review.”8

III. (Produced with the assistance of AI)

“Process against a minister shall ordinarily be entered before the Presbytery of which he is a member. However, when allegations have been duly presented to that Presbytery and the Presbytery fails to indict, the General Assembly may be requested to act as follows:

a. In doctrinal cases, or in cases of public scandal, if fifteen (15) Presbyteries request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction, the General Assembly shall do so.

b. In cases alleging private but heinous offenses which, if proven, would render a minister liable to suspension or deposition, if five (5) Presbyteries request the General Assembly to take cognizance of the matter, the General Assembly may assume original jurisdiction, remand the matter to the Presbytery with instructions, or decline further action.

c. In all cases under subsection b, the General Assembly shall ordinarily defer to the Presbytery of jurisdiction unless it finds that the Presbytery is unwilling or unable to act, materially conflicted, or that such deference would likely prejudice the cause of truth, justice, or the peace and purity of the Church.

The Alliance for Mission and Renewal has published a theological vision for what it believes will promote the PCA’s unity, faithfulness, and flourishing. This article seeks to engage positively, but also critically, with the sixth installment of that theological vision.

I want to begin by wholeheartedly affirming, with great gratitude, the desire of the author and of the Alliance for Mission and Renewal to make the Westminster Standards central to its vision for the PCA. The PCA was founded as a continuing, confessional church because the PCUS had departed from its heritage of confessional fidelity. Yet that history also reminds us that a denomination may continue formally to possess a confession long after it has ceased to believe, teach, or apply it faithfully.

A4MR makes this point by quoting Ian Hamilton’s reflection on the liberal drift of the Church of Scotland:

“You would be out of your tiny mind if you think a church’s orthodoxy can be guaranteed by its professed confessional standards… How did the church drift so quickly? It was pride. The moment you think yourself to be something in the eyes of God, you become nothing.”

I gladly affirm Hamilton’s warning. The mere existence of a confession cannot preserve a denomination. Confessional documents do not guard the church merely by occupying a place in its constitution. They must be believed, taught, applied, and defended by godly officers. A confession may remain formally adopted while becoming dust-covered, unused, and practically irrelevant. Nevertheless, this is not an argument for making the Standards less determinative. It is an argument for ensuring that they remain the church’s living and functioning confession.

The history of Seven Springs Presbyterian Church, where I am blessed to serve, illustrates this danger. Our congregation’s story began in the mid-1870s, and we have worshiped in our present building since 1901. By the 1970s, the building remained the same, the congregation remained, and the denomination still formally confessed the Westminster Standards. Yet the PCUS was drifting increasingly from the truths it professed.

The pastor I followed, Thomas B. Sullivan Jr., was ordained and installed in 1973. On June 4, 1978, the congregation voted forty-eight to zero to seek dismissal from the PCUS. On September 14, 1978, Seven Springs was dismissed to Westminster Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America. The church building had not changed. The Westminster Standards formally confessed by the denomination had not disappeared. But the denomination had increasingly ceased to use those Standards as its governing confession. Seven Springs did not leave because the PCUS possessed no confession; it left because the denomination was departing in doctrine and practice from the confession it still professed.

The Presbyterian Church in America stated in their Reaffirmations,

Nevertheless, some Presbyteries and Sessions have not disciplined themselves to require adherence to these standards. Moreover, the General Assembly has seated members not ordained under these requirements, and it has appointed and continued Committees that have not always adhered to these standards.1

This is why I strongly agree with A4MR that commitment to the Westminster Standards is “vital to our ongoing fidelity, unity, and witness.” The Standards must not be hidden in the sitemap of a congregation’s or denominational website, nor treated as an appendix that can be quietly ignored. They must function as the church’s public confession: preached and taught in our congregations, used in the examination of officers, applied by our courts, and defended against error. Otherwise, the confession may remain on our shelves while the church walks steadily away from everything it confesses.

While affirming this truth and reality, there is a difference in degree regarding what we mean when we say that the Standards are vital to our fidelity, unity, and witness. While we share a common bond with those of the catholic Christian Church, and while we share a common bond with the Reformed tradition and its wide variety across different cultures, we find ourselves as a particular branch, in a particular denomination, with a particular set of standards, written down for us in black and white.

Subscription

I do not seek to unpack the whole dilemma of subscription, which is historically diverse. At the founding of American Presbyterianism, the ministers who gathered in the colonies brought with them different understandings of confessional subscription.2 The Scottish tradition practiced a strong and comprehensive subscription; the Irish had wrestled with qualified subscription through the Pacific Act of 1720; and among English Presbyterians, there was significant resistance to mandatory subscription, as demonstrated at Salters’ Hall in 1719. These traditions converged in the Adopting Act of 1729, which affirmed the Westminster Standards while permitting stated scruples to be judged by the courts of the church. Although the Adopting Act was unanimously approved, its precise meaning was disputed almost immediately and has remained a matter of historical discussion.

The same diversity appeared at the PCA’s 2001 pre-Assembly conference on subscription. Tim Keller,3 Bryan Chapell,4 David F. Coffin Jr.,5 and Joseph A. Pipa Jr.6 presented distinct accounts commonly described, respectively, as system subscription, good-faith or vital-to-the-system subscription, articles-of-unity or logically consistent subscription, and full or strict subscription. Those papers help identify the range of views then under discussion, but none of them is itself part of the PCA Constitution.

I do not intend to provide a complete exposition of the PCA’s position on confessional subscription.7 There remain various understandings and practices concerning what Good Faith Subscription entails.

My definition of Good Faith Subscription is something along the lines of;

“Good Faith Subscription in the PCA means that a Presbytery may receive a man who sincerely receives and adopts the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, while granting him a stated exception judged not to be hostile to that system or to strike at the vitals of religion.”

A longer definition might be,

“Good Faith Subscription in the PCA means that a Presbytery may receive a man who sincerely receives and adopts the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, even though he has stated specific differences from those Standards. Those differences must be disclosed by the candidate and judged by the Presbytery. If the Presbytery determines that the stated differences are acceptable under the constitutional standard, the man may answer the ordination vow in the affirmative in good faith. Granting such an exception allows the man to take the vow honestly; it does not revise the Standards, make his exception the doctrine of the PCA, or place his view alongside the Standards as an alternative constitutional position.”

The heart of Good Faith Subscription is not the granting of an exception, but the candidate’s ability to take the ordination vow honestly. BCO 21-4 requires him to disclose his specific differences so that Presbytery may determine whether, notwithstanding those differences, he can in good faith sincerely receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture.

Following the Granting of Exception

My purpose in this article is narrower: to consider what a presbytery does when it grants an exception and whether that action carries the consequences the author assigns to it.

The article’s account reflects a recognizably Keller/Chapell interpretation of subscription. Many identify Chapell’s 2001 paper with Good Faith Subscription itself because his proposal bore that name and because the later constitutional language came to be described by the same shorthand. That historical association is understandable, but it is important not to conflate the proposed rationale with the text adopted by the church. The PCA did not adopt Chapell’s paper as an authoritative interpretation of subscription. It adopted the particular language now found in BCO 21-4.8

That language governs whether a candidate may take the ordination vow and how a court judges his stated differences. It does not say that granting an exception recognizes the candidate’s position as a legitimate alternative doctrine of the PCA. Nor does it provide a comprehensive account of what follows concerning the officer’s teaching and practice. This omission is especially notable because other overtures proposed more explicit directions concerning whether a difference could be held, taught, or practiced. Those proposed details were not incorporated into BCO 21-4. That history does not settle every question that arises after an exception is granted, but it does prevent us from treating Chapell’s full rationale as though it were the constitutional text adopted by the PCA.

The constitutional provisions commonly described as Good Faith Subscription principally address whether a candidate may sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Standards despite a stated difference. BCO 21-4 explains that a candidate is not required to affirm “every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms.” The word “our” is important. The candidate is not merely evaluating an interesting historical document. He is declaring a difference from the Confession and Catechisms adopted by the PCA as her own doctrinal Standards.

This allowance does not mean that the candidate affirms only those portions of the Standards from which he has not declared a difference. Rather, with his stated differences disclosed and judged by the Presbytery, he sincerely receives and adopts the Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. He first affirms that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, are “the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” He is then asked: “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?”

To protect the integrity of this vow, BCO 21-4 requires the candidate to identify the specific instances in which he differs from the Standards. The Presbytery then judges those differences. It may grant an exception only when the declared difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion. The action of the Presbytery allows the candidate to take his vow honestly before God, without concealment or mental reservation.

Because the candidate must declare specific differences, Good Faith Subscription can reasonably be understood to presume that he agrees with the Standards in those places where he has stated no difference. Yet this concerns the scope and integrity of the officer’s personal subscription. It does not mean that the church’s system of doctrine is whatever remains after his exceptions have been subtracted. If that were so, every officer would possess a personalized confession, and the PCA would have as many practical standards as she has officers. The Westminster Standards remain the church’s adopted exposition of the system; the exception identifies a bounded difference that the court has judged not to disqualify the man from taking the vow.

The author of the A4MR article, however, assigns a broader meaning to this action. He writes that by granting an exception, the PCA publicly declares itself “open to reform” on that matter because “there may be a legitimate biblical basis for a different view.” This is the inference I dispute.

In granting an exception, the Presbytery does not determine that the Standards may be wrong or that the candidate’s view is a legitimate alternative doctrine of the PCA. It determines that his stated difference does not prevent him from sincerely receiving and adopting the Standards as containing the biblical system of doctrine. The object of the Presbytery’s judgment is the candidate’s ability to take the vow, not the truth or possible error of the church’s confession.

The Standards are not being amended, reduced, or redefined in light of the candidate’s granted exception. BCO 26-1 states that the PCA Constitution consists of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms together with the Book of Church Order, “all as adopted by the Church.” Granting an exception is not the same as what is adopted by the Church. BCO 29-1 consequently identifies these Standards as the PCA’s “standard expositions” of Scripture regarding faith and practice (Cf. BCO 21-5 Q1). An individual officer’s exception is not part of the PCA Constitution and does not become an alternative doctrinal standard of the church, nor an approved interpretation of the Scripture according to the PCA.

The Standards are certainly fallible and amendable (WCF 31.3, BCO 39-3). Scripture alone is infallible and unbreakable (John 10:35). We cannot make a motion at our General Assembly to strike a passage of Scripture. We can, however, make a motion to strike or amend any portion of our Confession and Catechisms. The church is always open to reform according to Scripture and has a specific process through which that reform is to occur: amendment of the Constitution. In this constitutional process, the church may correct her subordinate Standards when persuaded from Scripture that they are wrong. BCO 26-3 requires the approval of three-fourths of the General Assembly, three-fourths of the presbyteries, and final enactment by a subsequent Assembly. That is the church acting corporately to reform her confession. A presbytery granting an exception to an individual officer is a fundamentally different action.

The distinction, therefore, is between what the church adopts and what the church permits. The PCA adopts the Westminster Standards as her constitutional doctrine. A presbytery may permit an officer to serve despite a limited stated difference. The latter does not modify the former.

The candidate also vows to be subject to his brethren in the Lord (BCO 21-5 Q4). His exception does not remove him from the continuing oversight of the church or place his private judgment alongside the Standards as an equally authoritative PCA position. It permits him to hold his stated difference while serving within a church whose public doctrine remains what she has constitutionally adopted. Even if a majority of officers hold a similar exception,9 the Standards of the Church do not change unless they are amended through the constitutional process. Otherwise, the PCA would function with two standards: the written Standards adopted by the Church and an unwritten standard formed by the accumulation of granted exceptions, of which we have no public record.

The PCA does not publicly state that, because the Westminster Standards are the standard exposition of Scripture, we are open to reform merely because we grant an exception. We allow a man, because of his conscience, to state his difference so that he can make a vow before God without his fingers crossed behind his back, but instead boldly affirm that the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine taught in Scripture.

Following the candidate’s vow, there are three major matters that I think the candidate needs to articulate and that the Presbytery may need to help him understand when he takes his vow: the ability to hold a doctrine contrary to the Standards, the ability to teach a doctrine contrary to the Standards, and the ability to practice a doctrine contrary to the Standards. Those three different levels need to be understood.

Holding, Teaching and Practicing

What does granting an exception do? At a minimum, it allows a man to hold a particular difference without being disqualified from office on that account. That difference remains his private judgment rather than the church’s adopted confession. The PCA does not affirm his position merely by granting the exception, for the position remains contrary to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in America. The more difficult questions concern what liberty he has to teach or practice that difference and what limits a court may properly impose.

The second matter is the ability to teach. A presbytery may allow a man to teach his stated difference, and, where wise and prudent, I would encourage presbyteries to do so. The variety of views within the Reformed tradition (e.g., Covenanter (1646) vs American Revision (1788)) can be helpful, even when we do not affirm every view in every detail. Nevertheless, permission to teach an exception does not transform that exception into the church’s doctrine or relieve the officer of his duty to represent the church’s Standards honestly and sympathetically.

There needs to be an understanding, again, of what has happened. A man has been granted an exception to hold that position and serve in the PCA. He has entered a confessional household whose doctrine predates his arrival and remains the church’s public doctrine, unless amended. He needs to show respect and wisdom toward the denomination that has received him, but also toward those in the pew. Some households do not allow people to wear shoes inside. You take your shoes off when you walk in the door. Although that might not be the practice in your house, you need to understand that it is gracious to do so when you are in the house of another.

Therefore, I believe that a man’s private judgment concerning a specific instance or difference does not grant him the liberty to publicly undermine the doctrines of the church, particularly if it disturbs the peace, purity, and unity of the Church. He should state his conviction honestly while clearly distinguishing it from the PCA’s adopted doctrine. He may explain that this is his own interpretation of a particular passage and that the Standards of our denomination teach differently. In doing so, he honors both his conscience and the confessional household in which he serves.

If he believes the difference is significant enough to warrant changing the Standards, I encourage him to seek that change through the courts of the church. But he is the one with the stated difference. For the peace, purity, and unity of the church, the standard should remain the standard unless it is changed through the proper constitutional process. A granted exception does not automatically render the mere teaching of that exception subject to discipline. Neither, however, does it suspend WCF 20.4 or the officer’s vows concerning the peace, purity, and unity of the church. If the manner or content of his teaching becomes a scripturally provable offense under BCO 29-1, violates lawful oversight, or becomes destructive to the external peace and order that Christ has established in the church, the proper court may call him to account. An exception is not immunity from discipline, though any discipline must rest upon Scripture as interpreted in the Standards (BCO 29-1) and proceed according to the Constitution of the Church.

Finally, there is the ability to practice. I believe this is where we need the most help as a denomination. Our denomination has specific views and interpretations of Scripture, and we need to seek unity around them. Even if every member of a Session personally holds a similar stated difference, I believe it is for the good of those in the pews to seek to uphold what is taught in Scripture as summarized in the Standards.

This is why I am grateful for publications such as Great Commission Publications, which seek to provide churches with resources from a confessional perspective. Many of the stated differences that I hear maintain that the Confession goes too far. However, the reverse is not that failing to follow the exception is therefore sinful.

Let me use an example to explain what I mean. Some might say, “To draw an image of Jesus in his humanity is not sinful. It is for didactic purposes, for teaching and instruction.” While I disagree, many who hold this view do not believe that such images are required. They might be helpful, but their use is not positively required by Scripture.

I therefore encourage brothers to think carefully about this, particularly for the denomination’s health and integrity. There may be people in your pews who uphold the Standards, even though they are not required to affirm them in their membership vows, and who seek to teach their children according to the Word of God without displaying images of Jesus. I do not believe it is helpful, wise, or orderly for a Session to approve a curriculum that violates our Standards and, more importantly, could trouble the conscience of a young child or their parents.

I believe that granting an exception does not permit the practice of that exception. Indeed, I would say that it does not change the Standards in a way that would allow a court to act contrary to them.

Conclusion

I am tremendously grateful for this interaction and for the opportunity to consider the truth of this matter. Our disagreement is not whether substantive exceptions may be granted; I affirm that they may. My position is therefore not a strict subscription. Nor do I need to characterize the article as advocating a bare subscription to the system. We stand near one another as we discuss whether a candidate with a stated difference may take the vow. We part ways over what the granting of that exception means and what consequences follow after the man becomes an officer.

I believe that, over time, the difference between these positions will have a lasting impact on the denomination. When we say that the Confession is vital to the fidelity, unity, and witness of our church, we are saying more than that it defines a broad field within which competing positions may be treated as equally Presbyterian. The PCA has adopted a standard. A person’s exception does not become that standard, amend that standard, or stand beside it as an alternative standard of the denomination. Rather, a man is granted an exception so that, with his difference honestly disclosed and judged, he may sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. We may share the same hope for a faithful and flourishing PCA, but these different understandings of an exception set us upon different paths, and those paths will lead to different outcomes.

Change can be a difficult thing. As I grow older, I begin to understand why previous generations often continued to do things as they had always done: balancing checkbooks, mailing bills, keeping familiar routines, and resisting the disruption of something new. Only recently, I found myself frustrated that Google had changed the icons for its products, so that the small image in my browser tab was no longer immediately recognizable. Such moments remind us that change is often inconvenient, sometimes disorienting, and rarely welcomed at first. Yet change is also necessary. To reject all change is to assume that nothing can be improved.

The PCA is looking at a Proposed Directory for Worship. This proposal will come before the General Assembly this year for a vote, and, depending on the outcome, will be sent to Presbyteries for consent and ratification at the next GA. I plan to walk through this proposal with an overview in subsequent writings, looking at the proposal chapter by chapter, highlighting some of the proposed Directory’s strengths and some of its areas for improvement (minor). I might also write a personal critique of what I believe could be improved throughout the Directory (although I hope this will not be a speech against it). However, I want to give a brief introduction to Directories in general and provide some specific advice for reading.

Historical setting

After the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, the Westminster divines were tasked with a large project, one part of which was seeking greater uniformity in worship across the three kingdoms.

“That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavour… to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.”1

In their wisdom, they did not prepare a prayer book or liturgy, but a Directory for Worship. A tool to help guide ministers in worship. You can see a summary of the arguments the Westminster Assembly had for changing from a service book to a Directory.

The documents written by the Assembly in the 1640’s have continued to be used by Presbyterians across the globe. This is true of American Presbyterians, in 1729 the Adopting Act was passed, and in the same year, the synod passed this motion,

“The Synod do unanimously acknowledge and declare that they judge the Directory for worship, discipline, and government, commonly annexed to the Westminster Confession, to be agreeable in substance to the word of God, and founded thereupon, and therefore, do earnestly recommend the same to all their members, to be by them observed, as near as circumstances will allow, and Christian prudence direct.”2

Eventually, they would write their own version of the Form of Government and Discipline (1788). While the Confession has had minor changes (1788 and 1903), the Directories have had multiple changes and variations. Many seeds came from the one Directory (1645). 3

The American Directory, within the branch of American Presbyterians stemming from the first Presbytery in 1706,4 and extending to what is now the PCA, has undergone several revisions and changes. The first proposed revision was presented in 1786, along with the Form of Government and Rules of Discipline. The proposal was about 23,000 words, much longer than the Original (about 13,800 words). The proposal was sent back, and a new committee was assigned to work on it. John Witherspoon and others later presented a much shorter Directory, about 7,000 words, which was adopted and became the standard Directory for American Presbyterians. I have sought to compare some of the variations in the Directories from American Presbyterian History.

Interesting changes

We could not list all the changes in a single article. Some are major and others minor. Writing about what American Presbyterians have done is easy; they keep accurate minutes of their actions, so the Historian can say this is what they passed or failed. However, determining why it passed or failed is difficult.

We can see changes, such as older practices, such as

As it has been customary, in some parts of our church, to observe a fast before the Lord's supper; to have a sermon on Saturday and Monday; and to invite two or three ministers on such occasions; and as these seasons have been blessed to many souls, and may tend to keep up a stricter union of ministers and congregations, we think it not improper that they who choose it may continue in this practice.

This would become the Current PCA BCO 58-8:

As past custom has been found in many parts of the Presbyterian Church, our congregations are urged to have a service of spiritual preparation for the Lord’s Supper during the week previous to the celebration of the Sacrament.

Or changes to Visiting the Sick:5

If the sick appears to be a stupid, thoughtless and hardened sinner, he shall endeavour to awaken his mind; to arouse his conscience… (1789)

Or a failed amendment, such as this terrific membership vow (1891):

Do you engage to be diligent in the use of the means of grace, such as prayer, the reading of the Scriptures, and devout attendance on the public worship and ordinances of God's house?

Or one that was not included in the 1933 version,

There is no day under the gospel commanded to be kept holy, except the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.

So when reading changes, we should do so in light of history. One of the biggest changes in the proposed Directory is the shift from pious advice (except for three chapters and one section) to the constitutional Directory. The Directory should be read in context as a historical document that helps direct, not dictate, principles of worship for the Denomination. While not perfect, I believe this tool, in the hands of sessions who prudently read, pray, study, and apply it to their congregations, will be a great blessing to the church for generations to come. As I have read and studied this text along with my historical research of Directories, I believe this is one of my favorites. While we could survey the plethora of Directories and choose favorite lines or phrases, we will never be satisfied.

The Proposed Directory is a tremendous resource that will serve the PCA well for generations to come. While I think it could be improved in some lines (try to point them out in my further articles). It is a blessing and needs to be read as a whole.

Pieces of advice

Now the penny is no longer being minted, my two cents are less valuable than they were before, but I will at least provide some thoughts as you read, study, pray, and consider the Proposed Directory.

Read the Directory as a Whole

Do not read this merely by searching for what is missing. Read it as a whole. Many people, myself included, will find particular places where they wish the Directory spoke more clearly or directly. I see missing lines or phrases that were present in older versions, which I was not opposed to. While I might like particular lines in the Third (out of Six) Revision of the Directory, that lead to the 1894 revision, such as “The great principle, defining the limitations upon public worship, is, that whatsoever is not either explicitly commanded in the word of God, or cannot be deduced from it by good and necessary consequence, is forbidden.”6 However, that does not mean I would vote for the Directory as a whole. If we are looking for a Directory that we 100% agree with, then there is no such document. In a denomination with 400,000 members, no document would ever pass.

When comparing historical revisions, we can look at what is missing; some might be deliberate, others based on priorities/space, and some accidental. We might not know with great detail which of these is the case. The Proposed Directory will omit some lines from historical versions; however, it includes many lines and sections that are significant improvements over other versions (I hope to point out some of them). The Proposed Directory has great, theologically rich, and confessionally deep instruction in Worship that is found in the streams of Reformed Presbyterianism. I will try to point these out in subsequent articles, but read the current version on Visiting the Sick, and then the proposed Directory’s Chapter on the same. I believe many people will see the improvement. You can do the same with every chapter, and I believe you will see a great richness in the Proposed Directory.

While helpful to see them side by side, I believe people will be better served not by seeing what they want written, but by reading and asking, "Will this serve the church well?” In subsequent years, we can send amendments to help craft a better Directory. But I do believe the changes would be more perfecting than revising.

Do not Pick and Choose

Secondly, my advice is not to turn to this merely to see whether your current practice is allowed, if you have no plan to read, study, and implement what is said. As I read through this Directory, it puts forward a positive direction for the heritage of Presbyterian worship as found in the Bible. The PCA, while evangelical, finds its roots in the southern Presbyterian tradition that saw worship as the perfecting of the saints. Many in the PCA do not come from a long line of catechized children and generations of elders. Many in the PCA have turned from a variety of traditions and denominations, or from a lack thereof, and have found beauty in the Reformed view of salvation and even in the form of government. I believe one of the greatest gifts that Presbyterians give is their simplicity of worship found in the outward and ordinary means of grace. Reformed Presbyterian Worship is where:

• The doctrines of grace are displayed in the centrality of the preached Word, by which God convicts and convinces sinners and draws them to Christ.

• The covenant of grace is visibly administered in baptism, as God sets his name upon his people and seals his promise to believers and their children.

• The government of Christ’s church is exercised as the session shepherds the souls entrusted to them by the great Shepherd of the sheep, equipping the saints for the work of ministry.

• The second commandment is honored as Christ is not represented by man-made images or traditions, but by the sensible and visible signs he himself appointed in the Lord’s Supper.

• The life of prayer is practiced as the gathered people of God lift up their hearts to the throne of grace, seeking mercy and help from their covenant Lord.

• The Trinitarian nature of worship is confessed as the people come to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

• And all of this rests upon the foundational truth that Christ alone is Head and King of his Church.

This Directory encourages sessions to move in this direction without many ‘shalls’ or ‘shall-nots.’

While the PCA might not change overnight, I pray that everyone, myself included, would read and study the Proposed Directory in light of Scripture and the Standards, and slowly teach and instruct the congregation in the beauty of Reformed Presbyterian worship. The Proposed Directory draws not only from the current PCA Directory but also from the 1645 Directory and the many Presbyterian directories that flow from this rich heritage.

Conclusion

Lastly, I want to commend the Proposed Directory to the Assembly. I am grateful for the labors of the men who have served; it is not an easy task to write such a document. They have done a tremendous job of writing these chapters for us to vote on. While not perfect, we must understand that our current one is not perfect either, particularly the temporary statement that is entering into the empty-nest stage of life. Even a non-controversial chapter of preaching could not pass a single General Assembly by a majority vote. For some men, this will be an easy decision to vote for the Proposed Directory. While others might find the Proposal does not go far enough. For men, I hope you will see this document as one step towards a stronger, unified PCA. Each will need to make a decision after reading, prayer, and study. This decision will have many factors, such as would you rather a unconstitutional directory (that is not perfect), or would you rather a constitutional directory (that is not perfect), but does give positive encouragement to sessions to apply the heritage of reformed Presbyterian worship to the congregation they are called to serve. I hope my following articles will show that the Proposed Directory will be a great blessing to the Presbyterian Church in America.

Many of us know the story and the history of the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms. Some are well-versed in the history that led to the writing of these documents, including the early English Reformation, the Tudor Family, the King James Bible, Mrs. Geddes’s stool, the Book of Sports, and the War of the Three Kingdoms. We might know the story of the 10 Articles becoming the 6 Articles, then the 42 Articles, finally ending with the 39 Articles.1 The Westminster Assembly was initially going to amend the 39 articles, but ultimately became the Confession and Catechisms. However, prior to their adoption of the Confessions and Catechisms, one of their earliest works was a Directory of Public Worship. The Directory of Public Worship was adopted in 1645 to replace the Common Book of Prayer.2 The following post seeks to understand the Assembly’s intentions in adopting the Directory of Public Worship, in contrast to the Common Book of Prayer. The post is based upon their own reasoning and arguments as articulated in the Preamble of the Directory of Public Worship.3

Heritage of the Service Book

The Assembly realized the great principle and heritage given to them in the Reformation. They saw their ‘wise and pious ancestors’ who sought to use the principle of Sola Scriptura to reform the vain errors, superstitions, and idolatry found in the public worship of God under the Catholic Church. They pursued reform of the church by writing the Common Book of Prayer. This ‘service book’ was written and implemented because of the ‘Latin Service Book,’ referred to as the Mass. The Assembly rejoiced at the great changes this brought to the church through the implantation of the use of the common language (hence the name, ‘Common Book of Prayer.’) The Preface to the Common book of Prayer gives many reasons for the switch, Language that can be easily understood, brevity, clarity of order, simplicity, and financial benefits for ministers who would only need two books; the Service Book and the English Bible.4 The Common Book of Prayer, as the Assembly began, was a helpful tool of the reformation.

Problems with the Service Book

However, the Common Book of Prayer had some faults after being used for a long time; instead of helping the Church, the Service book was harming the Church. The Assembly lists many reasons why the Service Book was harmful, such as the requirement that all the Prayers must be read, the numerous services that were unprofitable and burdensome, disquieting consciences of both godly ministers and members in the congregation, resulting in depriving them of ordinances, making them conform or subscribe to the ceremonies in the Service Book. The forceful implementation of the Common Book of Prayer led to Christians being barred from celebrating the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and godly ministers being barred from the ministry. The Assembly points out that the debarring of these ministers had drastic effects on the Church, as it left a scarcity of pastors, ultimately endangering souls. The debarring of Ministers had practical effects on families and the livelihood of these pastors. The leadership of the church, over time, elevated what was helpful to the church, raising it to the level of an idol and superstition (some of the reasons the Service Book was written to oppose). The leadership had a false sense of security based on superstition believing mere presence in the service was edifying and the practice of mere ‘lip-labour’ but in the end it had the effect of hardening some in ignorance and carelessness of saving knowledge5 and true piety.

The Assembly also point out the connections of the Common Service Book and the Latin Service book. They point out the Catholic Church’s positive attitude to the book as they share common threads such as the superstition and idolatry. The Assembly explained the Catholic Church saw the Common Book of Prayer as a steppingstone for the Church in the British Isles to return back to Catholic Church. Simply, the Common Book of Prayer began to look a lot like the Latin Service Book, which was to replace the latter.

Unforeseen effects of the Service Book

The Common Book of Prayer, as described by the Assembly states that this Service book has had unforeseen effects, not only on the church but also on the Ministers. Some ministers became idle, and their ministry was unedifying because they only used the forms written by others and neglected the gift of prayer, particularly seeking Christ to furnish his officers. The Common Book of Prayer was a large point of division in the church and was used as a ‘snare’ to trap godly members and ministers. The service book was used to force people to conform, to be persecuted, or to be silenced. Other Ministers have been sidetracked from the true ministry into other studies. The Assembly argued that God supplies his people with greater ways to identify error and superstition, as well as to acquire knowledge, godliness, and gifts in preaching and prayer.

Establishment of the Directory for Worship

Because of all these reasons, the Assembly sought to produce a new resource for the Church, not a service book but a directory. They explain that the first reformers, whom they show great respect for, would agree with them if they were alive today. The changes to the Common Book of Prayer made from 1549 to the later editions show a different use than what was once helpful. The Assembly saw a change in how the Service Book was used and the effects of such a book over 100 years. Through God’s providence, they called for reform in the church. They sought to satisfy their consciences and to answer other Reformed churches and those in their congregations, with the end goal of showing uniformity in divine worship according to the Word of God, as they had promised in the Solemn League and Covenant.6 The Assembly, through frequent petitions and humble study of God’s word, not relying on flesh and blood, decided to put to rest the Common Book of Prayer, including the many rites and ceremonies, and have agreed upon the Directory of Public Worship, which was to be used in ordinary and extraordinary times.

The Assembly expresses their care in writing the Directory, ensuring that every ordinance was founded upon divine institution, and, in other matters, they sought to use the rules of Christian prudence; under the authority of the Word of God, utilizing general heads and the sense and scope of prayers (WCF 1.6). They hoped that all the churches would be agreeable to the substance of the service and worship of God. The directory would be helpful to ministers, directing them in administrations, doctrine, and prayer. That this directory would be a help and furnish them, however, not leading them to be slothful and neglecting the stirring up of their gifts given to them by Christ. That Ministers, by mediation in God’s word, attention to himself, dedication to God’s flock, and submission to God’s providence, furnish his heart and tongue with additional resources of prayer and exhortation for all occasions.

Conclusion

The Assembly has recognized the shift from the beginning of the reformation to the present day. Ultimately, deciding to switch from a Service Book to a Directory of Worship. This directory they sought would show their commitment to divine worship, doctrinal purity, and ministerial responsibility. The introduction of the Common Book of Prayer, though initially celebrated for positive changes, eventually revealed its faults and detrimental impacts on the Church through its leaders. The Assembly’s decision to reform and replace it with the Directory was rooted in a desire for uniformity, biblical worship, and the avoidance of divisive practices. Through petitions, humble study, and reliance on divine guidance, the Assembly navigated the challenges posed by evolving worship practices, offering a comprehensive solution that aimed to satisfy consciences, address other Reformed churches, and uphold the solemn covenant. The Directory emerged as a balm for ministers, providing guidance without fostering complacency, urging them to continually stir up their gifts for the edification of the Church. In this historical process, the Assembly not only acknowledged past mistakes but also demonstrated a commitment to enduring, scripturally grounded worship that would stand the test of time.

X, formerly known as Twitter, can be a whirlwind. In recent days, a discussion has arisen regarding stated differences, mainly concerning the use of images of Christ for artistic or pedagogical purposes. This discussion has occurred before, and there are many good resources that I believe support the Reformed/Westminsterian position.

One of the best short articulations of the argument that images of Christ strike at the vitals of religion can be found in the Confessional Presbyterian, by Dr. Harrison Perkins, “Images of Christ and the Vitals of the Reformed System.” Dr. Perkins briefly touches on the argument in this article. Many arguments can be made for the prohibitions of images of the Second Person of the Trinity (Eg, Faith No Fancy, R. Erskine). This article is not exhaustive, nor is it the sole reason why candidates and ordained men should reconsider their stated differences.

Before I begin, I believe the Westminster Standards do not go too far in their exposition of the Ten Commandments. I believe they are applying the interpretive method of ‘good and necessary consequence’ (WCF 1.6). I also believe they are consistent with their principles of interpretation as set out in WLC 99. When reading the commandments in isolation, this narrows our interpretation and application of them. I understand that people state their differences with the Westminster Standards concerning the second commandment. Although they might appear rational arguments in their minds, I believe they are inconsistent in their theological definitions, severing Christology from the application of the commandment. I pray my article might provoke thought in all of us, leading us to see the beauty of the incarnation, to know the Person, Jesus Christ, and to worship him.

In this article, I hope to be able to show that images of Christ are hostile to the system of doctrine because they treat the person of the Son as capable of being contained in a man-made image, whereas orthodox Christology insists that His person subsists in the inseparable union of the divine and human natures, and therefore cannot be represented without distorting the unity of His person.

Gregory of Nyssa rightly explains in his writing ‘Not Three Gods’ that, “In truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow if it meets with insufficient treatment.”1 Wrapping our finite minds around the infinite true and living God is impossible. There is no small question when speaking about God, and even the smallest of questions, if not correctly handled, can fall into heresy and blasphemy. As Gregory of Nyssa states, the harm from insufficient treatment is no small matter. We therefore need to consider the implications of these truths before stating our differences, and be willing to defend them.

Francis Turretin said, “In the Christian religion there are two questions above all others which are difficult. The first concerns the unity of the three persons in the one essence in the Trinity; the other concerns the union of the two natures in the one person in the incarnation.”2 It is great comfort to us that great minds like these and many others explain the difficulty of seeking to understand the Triune God revealed to us in His Holy Word. We also need to be reminded that God has not left us without his word, by which he reveals himself to us, so that we may know him and worship him. Therefore, both our knowledge of God and any claim to represent Him must be governed by His Word, not by the inventions of our imagination.

Definitions

Nature is what something is, its set of essential properties. When we speak of the Godhead, we use the term essence, the essence of the divine. Turretin defines it this way, “First, here occurs the word ousias or “essence” and “nature” which denotes the whatness (quidditatem) of a thing and is often met with in Scripture, not only in the concrete when God is called ho ōn (Ex. 3:14; Rev. 1:4), but also in the abstract when deity (theotēs, Col. 2:9), nature (physis, Gal. 4:8), divine nature (theia physis, 2 Pet. 1:4) is attributed to God.”3

Person is who someone is, a subsisting subject who acts. Turretin explains it this way, “The word “person” is properly concrete and not abstract. Besides the form (which is personality), it also marks the subject with the form from which it is denominated.”4

The Hypostatic Union is God the Son, second person of the Trinity, subsisting of the divine nature, taking on flesh, the human nature in the fullness of time. Stemming from the Greek word, ‘ὑπόστασις’ literally means, “ that which stands under.” When we speak in Christological terms, we refer to a distinct personal subsistence; yet the human nature of Christ is not a distinct personal subsistence, but subsists in the person of the Son.5 This is why it is important to understand the Triune God, as the essence of God does not take on the nature of man, in that the Trinity becomes incarnate, but the Person of the Son, who is of the same substance as the Father and the Spirit, takes on his human nature. The Person is united to the Nature, not the Essence united to the nature.

Anhypostasia (ἀνυποστασία) teaches that the human nature of Christ has no independent personal subsistence of its own; it was never, even for a moment, a human person standing alone. This guards against Nestorianism, which wrongly posited two persons in Christ loosely conjoined.

Enhypostasia (ἐνυποστασία) is the positive complement; the human nature, though lacking its own independent hypostasis, is not therefore impersonal or deficient, because it truly and fully subsists in the person of the eternal Son. This guards against Apollinarianism, which wrongly taught that the Logos displaced or replaced a component of the human nature, leaving it incomplete.6

Together, these doctrines establish that Christ’s human nature is neither a separate subject nor an abstract component, but truly exists only in the person of the Son. Therefore, it cannot be isolated, conceived, or represented independently without distorting the unity of His person.

The Westminster Confession states the Biblical Doctrine of hypostatic union,

“The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man” (WCF 8.2).

Turretin says,

“It may be called a part also analogically and in a wider sense; not as if the person of Christ is compounded or consists of two incomplete natures, as parts properly so called (which would savor of imperfection); but because it subsists not in one, but in two natures and agrees with both; not accidentally, but essentially.”7

Again Turretin,

“That is, did the Son of God, the second person of the holy Trinity, join together with himself in unity of person, not a person, but a human nature; not by conversion and transmutation, but by assumption and sustentation, so that the Son of God was made the Son of man and our Mediator and is truly God-man.”8

Inseparably joined together

The Confession states clearly,

“So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.”

The Confession carefully defines its terminology, affirming that the two natures, the Godhead and the manhood, are inseparably united in one person. They are not two natures, to two persons, nor one person and half natures. The Reformation did not create new categories or theological terms but used the Catholic (universal) teaching of the Church as taught in Scripture (WCF 1.10). The Assembly is repeating what has been stated before by the early church fathers and the Chalcedonian definition,

“Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all teach with one accord one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in His Godhead and perfect in His manhood, true God and true man, consisting of a reasonable soul and of a body, of one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, and of one substance with us as touching the manhood, like unto us in everything, sin excepted, according to the Godhead begotten of the Father before all time, but in the last days, for us men and for our salvation, according to the manhood, born of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord,—only-begotten, confessed in two natures, without confusion, without change, without rending or separation; while the difference of the natures is in no way denied by reason of the union, on the other hand, the peculiarity of each nature is preserved, and both concur in one Person and Hypostasis.”9

Briefly, the humanity of Christ does not subsist independently, but only in the person of the Son. This union was therefore “inseparably joined together in one person.” The WCF states that one cannot separate Christ’s human nature from the second person of the Triune God. It is not a detachable or isolatable object, but the humanity of the Son. As Francis Turretin rightly insists, “what the Logos (Logos) has once assumed he never laid aside.”10 The humanity, therefore, is never presented apart from the person, but always as personally united to Him; and because the person of the Son has always subsisted in the divine essence from all eternity, the natures cannot be separated.

Use of images

This is where brothers who take exception to the images of Christ are inconsistent. I have heard many arguments and read many stated differences.11 However, one argument that is often made is that pictures of Jesus Christ are not forbidden, for pedagogical and artistic reasons (or more specifically, images of Christ are permissible, in most circumstances if they are not worshipped). This is articulated and supported by the image, which depicts Christ’s humanity, not his deity. His human nature is depicted, not his divine nature. However, this strikes at the vitals of religion because it separates what has been inseparably joined together in one person. The nature (what-ness) is always connected to the person (who-ness). You cannot depict humanity without depicting a person. Even in our use of language, we see this. A child stating, “I drew human nature.”12 Even if the human is ambivalent, the correct use would be, “I drew a human.” The nature of a human is attached to a person, even if unnamed. When one attempts to draw Christ, one does not merely depict a human nature, but the person of the Son himself; and that person, as the eternal Second Person of the Trinity, subsists inseparably in both divine and human natures, and therefore cannot be represented by any created image, stemming from human imagination. This stands in contrast to the incarnation itself, wherein the Son, who is the image of the invisible God, reveals Himself according to His own will, something no creature can replicate.

Calvin’s well-known statement that the human heart is “a perpetual factory of idols”13 is often cited broadly, but in its original context, it arises specifically within his critique of images of God. This tendency is not abstract, but deeply rooted in the history of God’s people. Not long after the Lord manifested Himself from the mountain without form, the people of Israel fashioned a golden calf, declaring it to be the God who brought them up out of Egypt. In his Sermons on Deuteronomy, Calvin writes,

“And can a man devise to tear the Majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to deface his glory more, than by things that the Papists do? Behold, they paint and portray Jesus Christ, who (as we know) is not only man, but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? He is Gods eternal son in whom dwells the fullness of the God head, yea even substantially. Seeing it is said, substantially, should we have portraitures and images whereby the only flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ, that is to wit, of his divine Majesty? Yes: and therefore whensoever a Crucifix stands mopping & mowing in the Church, it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the son of God.”14

John Owen expresses this argument more completely, “All this is done in the person of Christ. He is the complete image and perfect representation of the Divine Being and excellencies. I do not speak of it absolutely, but as God proposeth himself as the object of our faith, trust, and obedience.”15 Owen makes it clear that the Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature so that we might know God and worship Him rightly. God, knowing man’s inclination to exchange the truth about Him for a lie (Rom. 1:21ff), has given us Christ as the true and living revelation of Himself. Because of our weakness and inability to behold the fullness of God’s glory directly, the Lord has graciously given us to know Him in Christ: “For considering our weakness as to an immediate comprehension of the infinite excellencies of the divine nature, or to bear the rays of his resplendent glory, seeing none can see his face and live, it is the most adorable effect of divine wisdom and grace, that we are admitted unto the contemplation of them in the person of Jesus Christ.”16

Later in his works, John Owen applies this reason to images of Christ, where he says,

“And, by the way, we may see hence the vanity as well as the idolatry of them who would represent Christ in glory as the object of our adoration in pictures and images. They fashion wood or stone into the likeness of a man. They adorn it with colours and flourishes of art, to set it forth unto the senses and fancies of superstitious persons as having a resemblance of glory…and so propose it as an image or resemblance of Christ in glory. But what is there in it that hath the least respect thereunto,—the least likeness of it? nay, is it not the most effectual means that can be devised to divert the minds of men from true and real apprehensions of it? Doth it teach anything of the subsistence of the human nature of Christ in the person of the Son of God? nay, doth it not obliterate all thoughts of it! What is represented thereby of the union of it unto God, and the immediate communications of God unto it? Doth it declare the manifestation of all the glorious properties of the divine nature in him? One thing, indeed, they ascribe unto it that is proper unto Christ,—namely, that it is to be adored and worshipped; whereby they add idolatry unto their folly.”17

As Owen so often does, he drives us to the person of Christ Himself as He is revealed in the Word—the true and whole Christ: the Second Person of the Trinity, in whom the divine and human natures subsist inseparably and cannot be severed. We need the God-man for our salvation, for our knowledge of God, and even for our apprehension of his true beauty. No image can present this Christ. A picture that depicts only His humanity is, at best, theologically impossible, and at worst, blasphemous. For when would we ever need or desire an image that does not present the person of the Son?

Many more reformers could be quoted here, but I will finish with Thomas Watson, who applies the same logic in his Body of Divinity,18, “If it be not lawful to make the image of God the Father, yet may we not make an image of Christ, who took upon him the nature of man? No… It is Christ’s Godhead, united to his manhood that makes him to be Christ; therefore to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhead, is a sin, because we make him to be but half Christ,—we separate what God hath joined,—we leave out that which is the chief thing, which makes him to be Christ.”19

Conclusion

I hope this article serves as kindling to spark further reflection and, above all, a deeper sense of wonder at the glory of the gospel. My aim has been to show, even briefly, that images of Christ are hostile to the system of doctrine, because they treat the person of the Son as capable of being contained in a man-made image, thereby separating what God has inseparably joined together, the divine and human nature subsisting in the one person of Christ. In stating a difference to WLC 109 and other portions of our Standards, such a position applies WCF 8.2 inconsistently, something no Presbytery, I trust, would approve if stated as a difference. May we therefore be content to know Christ as He has revealed Himself, in His Word, by His Spirit, and unto the glory of God alone.

The following is a non-exhaustive selection of confessions, articles, and catechisms that articulate the consistent views on images in the Reformed Church. This does not seek to look at personal theologians but at the body of Reformed Churches across multiple years and branches of the Reformation.

This collection by James T. Dennison has been one of the most helpful resources in my studies and teaching. Gathering 127 confessional documents from the Reformation and post-Reformation era, it shows both the unity and development of Reformed theology in a way few works can. I use it in the classroom to impress upon students the value of confessions; how the church, with care and conviction, puts doctrine into writing, adopts it corporately, and hands it down faithfully. It also provides a clear view of the interconnected branches of the Reformed family.

Reformation Heritage Books

Logos Bible Software

1500

Zwingli’s Short Christian Instruction (1523)

Concerning images: it is reasonable for everyone to teach, as has been found, that images are forbidden by God—so that, after they have been instructed and strengthened, the unlearned and weak ones may soon accept what should be done with the images. For this purpose, the little book that recently came out, On the Abolition of Images, will serve well because it has much scriptural evidence.1

The Ten Theses of Bern (1528)

8. To fashion images in order to stand before them for worship is contrary to the Word of God comprehended in the books of the Old and New Testament. Thus wherever they have so dishonored themselves, as it is a danger, they should be abolished, not adored.2

The Tetrapolitan Confession (1530)—Ch 22

Finally, against statues and images our preachers have applied the holy oracles, chiefly because they began to be worshipped and adored openly, and vain expenditure was devoted to them that was due the hungry, thirsty and naked Christ; and lastly, because by their worship and the expenditure they required (both conflicting with God’s word) they seek merits with God.3

The First Confession of Basel (1534)—Art. 11

Of Illicit Papal Permissions and in Particular of the Religious Reverence of the Saints and of the Making and Worshipping of Images

And besides much less should anything be permitted, that God has forbidden (God said, “I am the Lord your God.” Lev. 18:2 and Deut. 10:17. “The Lord, your God, is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty, and terrible, etc.” Who thus would grant among his creatures, what he prohibits?). And thus the worship and invocation of dead saints (In other respects, we acknowledge the saints before God, to also reign with Christ forever; therefore, those who acknowledge Christ, and then have confessed both by words and deeds, that He is their Savior, Redeemer, and Righteousness, without any addition of human merit, we praise and commend, as they have obtained the mercy of God and now are made heirs of the eternal kingdom: nevertheless, they refer everything to the glory of God and Christ), veneration and erecting of images, and such like, we reject.4

First Helvetic Confession (1536)—Art 24.

Moreover, we are of the opinion that the sacred assembly is celebrated thus, as before all things the Word of God is preached in public to the people daily, the hidden things of the Scriptures are drawn out and expounded daily by trustworthy ministers, celebrating the sacred Eucharist, the faith of the pious then being exercised, prayers continually offered for all men [and] for the necessities of all men. But the rest of the ceremonies we remove far away from our sacred assembly as tedious, useless, and innumerable, [such as] vessels, curtains, garments, lights, altars, gold, silver, insofar as they serve to pervert religion, especially idols and images that are set up for worship and a stumbling block, and all such profane things. (1 Tim. 2; 1 Cor. 14; Ex. 10; John 5; Isa. 40)5

Geneva Catechism (1559)—Q 143–149

144. M. Does He entirely forbid us to make any image?

C. No, but He forbids us to make any image with which to represent God, or to worship Him.

145. M. Why is it unlawful to represent God visibly?

C. Because there is no resemblance between Him who is eternal Spirit and incomprehensible, and corporal, dead, corruptible and visible matter (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 40:7; Rom. 1:23; Acts 17:24, 25).

146. M. You think then that it does dishonour to His majesty to represent Him in this way?

C. Yes.

147. M. What kind of worship is here condemned?

C. When we come before an image intending to pray, or bow our knee before it; or make any other sign of reverence, as if God were there showing Himself to us.

148. M. This does not mean that all sculpture or painting is universally forbidden, but only all images used in the service of God, or in worshipping Him in visible things, or indeed for any abuse of them in idolatry of any kind whatsoever.

C. That is so.

149. M. Now to what end shall we refer this commandment?

C. With the first commandment, God declared that He alone, and no one beside Him, should be worshipped: so now He shows us the correct form of worship, in order that He may draw us away from all superstitions, and carnal ceremonies.6

Large Emden Catechism of the Strangers’ Church, London (1551)—Q. 24

Q. 24. How is that commandment to be observed?

R. Since we have residing within our hearts the great majesty of the Spirit of God, we should neither make nor erect any image, to which, inwardly or outwardly, we assign honor or reverence as something divine, or with which we compare the eternal, invisible, and incomprehensible essence of God. Indeed, we worship God alone, according to his word in spirit and in truth. (Jn. 4; Dt. 27; Is. 44; Ps. 115; Jer. 10; Lev. 19; Ezk. 33; Is. 44; Ex. 25; Dt. 4, 12; 1 Sam. 15; Jn. 4)7

Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551)

Moreover I renounce the Pope as the Roman Antichrist, and his whole doctrine and religion: in particular, touching transubstantiation of the bread in the Eucharist; touching the invocation of saints, trust in the righteousness of works that belongeth unto ourselves or unto any other whomsoever save Christ, free will, purgatory, and any satisfaction for sins other than the blood of Christ; and finally, touching all the image-worship and all other such-like human inventions that are contained in his religion and doctrine. God grant that this faith may be increased in me, and that I may be able to persevere therein even unto the end. May He grant also to all yet ignorant of Himself the true light of faith: to the end that acknowledging the only Deliverer of the world, Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, they may with us obtain salvation.8

The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562)

Lo thaasse leka pessel, kal themuna ascher baschamaijm mimma, vaascher, baaresz, mithachat, nascher bamaijm, mitthachat laaresz. “Do not make yourself a carved image and any likeness (of those things) which are on the earth” (Ex. 20:4). Loh tischtachaveh lahem veloh taofdem. “Do not worship and honor them” (v. 5), since I alone am to be honored and worshipped by right of salvation, creation, and redemption; I alone in My Son, in the Spirit and in truth, in true faith according to My Word. Do not set up wicked worship or dogmas; as you must not have any created thing as a god, nor honor them. You must make no image of God, who is invisible, nor worship Him through images. Nor must you superstitiously portray the likeness of things created, nor worship them. God prohibits these two things: first, the making of an image of God, who is invisible, even if it is not worshipped (Deut. 4); and the forming of a superstitious and scandalous image of any created thing (Isa. 44). Furthermore, these are not to be worshipped: all forms of superstition, enchantment, magic, charms, fortune telling and divination are here condemned. These are the distinctions in the second commandment of the Hebrews and Greeks; the plain sense of the words shows it. Therefore, they err who combine the two commandments.9

Scots Confession (1560)— Ch 14

…As not to call upon Him alone when we have need, not to hear His Word with reverence, to condemn and despise it, to have or to worship idols, to maintain and defend idolatry, lightly to esteem the revered name of God, to profane, abuse, or condemn the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to disobey or resist any that God has placed in authority (while they pass not over the bounds of their office) (Rom. 13), to murder, to consent thereto, to bear hatred or to suffer innocent blood to be shed, if we may withstand it (Ezek. 22), and finally the transgression of any other commandment in the first or second table, we confess and affirm to be sin by which God’s hot displeasure is kindled against the proud and unthankful world…10

Heidelberg Catechism (1563)— Q&A 96–99

96. What does God require in the second Commandment?

That we in no way make any image of God (Deut. 4:15–19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22–24; Acts 17:29), nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word (1 Sam. 15:23; Deut. 12:30–32; Matt. 15:9).

97. May we not make any image at all?

God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve God by them (Ex. 23:24–25; 34:13–14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; 2 Kings 18:4).

98. But may not pictures be tolerated in churches as books for the people?

No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by dumb idols (Jer. 10:8; Habakkuk 2:18–19), but by the lively preaching of His Word (2 Peter 1:19; 2 Tim. 3:16–17).11

Thirty-Nine Articles (1562/63)— Art. XXII

The Romish doctrine concerning pugatory, pardons, worshipping, and adoration, as well of images, as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.12

Second Helvetic Confession (1566)—Ch. 4

And because God is an invisible Spirit, and an incomprehensible essence, He cannot, therefore, by any art or image be expressed. For which cause we fear not, with the Scripture, to term the images of God mere lies. We do, therefore, reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. For although Christ took upon Him man’s nature, yet He did not, therefore, take it that He might set forth a pattern for carvers and painters. He denied that He came “to destroy the Law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17), but images are forbidden in the Law and the prophets. He denied that His bodily presence would any way profit the church (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 40:18). He promises that “He would by His Spirit be present with us for ever” (John 16:7; 2 Cor. 5:5); who would then believe that the shadow or picture of His body in any way benefits the godly? And seeing that He abides in us by His Spirit, “We are therefore the temples of God” (1 Cor. 3:16), but “what agreement hath the temple of God with images?” (2 Cor. 6:16). And seeing that the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here abhorred all worship done unto themselves (Acts 14:15; Rev. 14:7; 19:10; 22:8–9) and spoke against images, who can think it likely that the saints in heaven and the angels are delighted with their own images, to whom men bow their knees, uncover their heads and give such other like honor?

But that men might be instructed in religion, and put in mind of heavenly things and of their own salvation, the Lord commanded “preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15), not to paint and instruct the laity by pictures: He also instituted sacraments, but nowhere did He appoint images. Furthermore, in every place, in whatever way we turn our eyes, we see the lively and true creatures of God, which if they are marked, as is meet, they much more effectually move the beholder than all the images; or vain, unmovable, rotten, and dead pictures of men whatsoever; of which the prophet spoke truly, “They have eyes, and see not” (Ps. 115:5).

Therefore, we approve the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says, “Undoubtedly there is no religion, wheresoever there is a picture.” And we affirm that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did well, who, finding on the church doors a veil, that had painted on it the picture as it might be of Christ or of some saint or other, he cut and took it away; for, contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, he had seen the picture of a man hanging in the church of Christ: and, therefore, he charged that from thenceforth no such veils, which were contrary to our religion, should be hung up in the church of Christ, but that rather such scruple should be taken away which was unworthy the church of Christ and all faithful people. Moreover we approve this sentence of St. Augustine, “Let not the worship of men’s works be a religion unto us. For the workmen themselves that make such things are better; whom yet we ought not to worship” (De Vera Religion, Chap. 55).13

Sandomierz (1570)— IV.

The only true God is invisible Spirit and is incomprehensible in His essence, and therefore He cannot be represented in any manner or in any image of Himself. Because of this, we safely, on the basis of Holy Scripture, call all such images and likenesses of God lies and idols, including among them not only pagan gods, but also Christian images. Even though Christ took upon Himself human nature, yet because He is in one person true God and man, He can in no way be painted or sculpted. He Himself said that He did not come to destroy the eternal law written by the finger of God, in which the second commandment marvelously and sternly forbids not only the worship but also the making of any images. He also stated clearly that His bodily dwelling with us would not be necessary for His church in the time to come. On the contrary, He promised to be among His faithful through His Holy Spirit always, until the end of this world.

Therefore, it is a vain and mistaken belief regarding images that they are somehow profitable for the church of God, because the living Christ continually dwells in Christian people through His Spirit, and we are the church of the living God, according to the apostolic words (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19), and living things can have no union with lifeless images. Moreover, all the holy people, while they were here on earth, never received any worship or bowing from people, but, indeed, sternly spoke against this and against idols. Therefore, it is a very obscene idea to think that these holy people take pleasure after death in the same thing that they warned sternly against during their lives. Even today, every faithful person who sincerely loves only the glory of God can hardly accept it when not only simple people, but even priests, bow before wood, stone, and mute pillars, offering incense before them, singing, and making all reverence. Also, regarding the fact that Roman theologians say that images are the books of the simple, by this they betray themselves, that they have forsaken the living voice of Christ’s teaching and have given their office to lifeless images. However, Christ commanded His followers to teach and proclaim the gospel throughout the whole world, and added to this the external sacraments for our admonition. The apostles also told their descendants to teach, admonish, warn, and rebuke the common people and did not set up any images for this purpose, nor did they teach us to do this.

Furthermore, wherever we turn throughout the broad world, from every direction living things created by God come before our eyes, which are able to remind us truly about God and about His omnipotence and goodness with more profit than all despicable and lifeless images and pillars made in the likeness of human beings, regarding which the prophet justly said, “They have eyes but see nothing, etc.” (Ps. 115:5). Therefore, we agree with the statement of the ancient doctor Lactantius, who wrote, “There is no need to doubt that there is no true religion where there are images or idols.” We also praise the actions of St. Epiphanius the bishop, who, when he saw above a church door a curtain painted in the form of Christ or of some holy person, pulled it down and scraped it off, because (as he himself writes) it is not fitting to tolerate images in a Christian church over against Holy Scripture. He added to this, that there should never afterwards be such paintings in the church of Christ as are against the Christian faith, and unworthy of such a place, and which serve only toward creating doubt and tearing down faith.

We also accept in this regard the statement of St. Augustine, who wrote regarding the true praise of God in these words: “Let us not have such religion in us that we praise human work, because the craftsmen themselves who make such images are more worthy, yet it is not fitting for us to praise them” (Cap. Lu.).14

Bohemian Confession (1573)— Ch. 17

Furthermore, it is taught in the church that no one ought so to reverence holy men, much less their images, as we worship God, or to reverence them with that worship and affection of mind which solely and only are due to God. By no means [are they] to honor them with divine worship or to give it to them. For God says by the prophet Isaiah, “I am the Lord your God, this is my name; I will not give my honor to another, nor my glory to images” (Isa. 42:8; 48:11).15

But even as that thing is contradicted that the honor due to God should be given to saints, so it is by no means to be permitted that the honor of the Lamb, Christ our Lord, and things which belong to Him and due to Him alone and pertaining to the proper and true priesthood of His nature, should be transferred to them; that is, lest of them and those torments which they suffered, we should make redeemers or merits in this life, or else advocates, intercessors, and mediators in heaven, or that we should invoke them, and not them only, but not so much as the holy angels since they are not God. For there is one Redeemer only (1 Tim. 2:5), who being once delivered to death, sacrificed Himself both in His body and blood (Heb. 9:11–12). There is also one only advocate, the most merciful Lord of us all (1 John 2:1).16

Nassau (Dillenburger Synod) Confession (1578)

That one ought not to make any likeness of God is found not only in the Decalogue, where it is laid out fully (Exod. 20; Deut. 5), but it is also expressly and earnestly forbidden in innumerably many places in Moses and the prophets.

In particular, in Deuteronomy 4, God debars them not only from depicting Him by any image or likeness of any creature, but also adds this reason for the prohibition: that when the Lord on the mount revealed Himself to the people out of the midst of the fire, He spoke with them and they heard His voice, but they saw no image or likeness.

Similarly, God warns the people in Isa. 46[:5], “To whom will you liken me or with whom will you compare me? Against whom will you measure me that I should be like unto them?”

This must be acknowledged by all sober persons because God is a spiritual, infinite essence, incomprehensible not only by the eyes but also by thought; and therefore it is impossible to paint or depict Him.

Therefore the apostle Paul gives us a rule (not only from the Holy Spirit, but even from natural understanding) and warns us against everything in the way of a depiction of God produced by hands and by the imagination, declaring in Acts 17[:29]: “We ought not to suppose that the Godhead is like golden or silver or stone images made by man’s device.”

On this account, it may be easily determined what to hold concerning the painted and carved images of the Holy Trinity in use under the Papacy. In particular, there are representations of God the Father, which still from time to time are being painted, in which the three divine persons are depicted or carved with three heads on the body of a man; or the person of the Father is given the form of an old man with a long, gray beard, and wearing a golden crown on his head.

These depictions ought certainly to be left off the walls and omitted from books, and should come neither into the sight of Christians nor into our thoughts because it stands written [John 4:24]: “God is a spirit, and therefore He will be known and worshiped in spirit and in truth.”

Some would at once excuse themselves that they are not so uncouth as thus to suppose that God has such a form as that in which He is carved or painted, but rather that these are to them only reminders signifying the invisible and incomprehensible God. Nevertheless, this cannot hold good in contradiction to the Word of God.

For no creature, either in heaven or in earth, has the authority by which he might invent or constitute anything a sign through which God would be signified when God Himself has not ordained and given it to that end, and far less when it is prohibited by Him.

Accordingly, it cannot, without insult and dishonor to God, be said of a painted or hewn picture of an old man or the like: “That is God,” or “That is the likeness of God,” excuse and cloak it how one will.

Experience shows, in regard to these depictions of God, that the youth and simple folk quite readily imagine to themselves erroneous and inept thoughts about God (to which they are inclined even without these images) and which afterwards always come to them during prayer, and which are taken back out of their hearts only with difficulty, despite all the preaching and testifying.

Nevertheless, this idolatry meanwhile continues ever on, so that instead of the true, living, and invisible God, worship is given to the feigned image of an old man in his long, gray beard, as an idol devised by the brains of men.

This then is foremost when contesting against images, that one should leave God to be unpainted and undepicted so that we do not as St. Augustine says, “fall into blasphemy against God.” On this account the apostle condemns those who have “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like to corruptible men,” Rom. 1[:23].17

The Kings Confession (1581)

We abhor his devilish Mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men and women saints, calling upon angels or departed saints, worshipping of imagery, relics, crosses, dedicating of churches, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayer for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; his processions and blasphemous litany; his multitude of advocates or mediators, with his manifold orders and auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubting faith; his satisfactions of men for their sins; his justification by works; his opus operatum, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations and stations…

To which we join ourselves willingly in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments as lively members of the same with Christ our head, promising and swearing by the great name of our Lord that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this church and shall defend the same according to our vocation and power all the days of our lives under the pains contained in the law and danger both of body and soul, in the day of God’s fearful judgment.18

1600

Confession of the Synod of Cassel (1607)—II.

As then we are bound to teach and study the words of the holy Ten Commandments, so also we are pledged and obliged to obey them, as was said by Moses, the man of God: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so, etc. Keep therefore and do them, etc.” (Deut. 5[4]:5). Likewise: “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it. Ye shall not every man do whatsoever is right in his own eyes” (Deut. 12:32, 8). Further, God the Lord has said in His holy Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness, etc.” (Ex. 20:4). Also: “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire. Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the likeness of male or female, etc.” (Deut. 4:15). Also: “Take heed then unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which he made with you. Do not make unto you a graven image of any likeness, as the Lord your God has commanded. For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God” (4:23). To the contrary, it is never written that God commanded and said, “Thou shalt make a picture of me; thou shalt make some graven image or likeness of me.” Similarly, nowhere in the entire Bible is it written that either the patriarchs Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David, or the prophets and apostles, or other saints of God, even once erected an image of God, of Christ, or of Mary, or other deceased patriarchs and saints. Much rather the Scripture testifies that they broke in pieces the images and idols erected by others, and put them out of the sight of the churches. Therefore we regard ourselves bound and engaged to remove from the eyes of God’s congregation the superstitious images carried over from the papacy, which had been set up, consecrated, and used in our churches for no other end than idolatry.19

Confession of the Evangelical Church in Germany (1614)—20.

LV. Just as we believe regarding the ceremonies of the sacraments that no one has the power to change them; so also we believe regarding God’s laws, that no person has the power to change them, to add to or take away from them. For it is written: “You shall not add to what I command you, nor shall you take anything away from it” (Deut. 4:2). Therefore it is not fitting for a Christian that he cut out portions of the Ten Commandments of God, as the pope of Rome has removed portions of them and has scratched out the law regarding images, to his advantage, so that the common man would not notice that his images and idols are forbidden by God (Ex. [20]:4; Deut. 5:8).20

Irish Articles (1615)— Arts. 52–53

52. All worship devised by man’s fantasy, besides or contrary to the Scriptures (as wandering on pilgrimages, setting up of candles, stations, and jubilees, pharisaical sects, and feigned religions, praying upon beads, and such like superstition), has not only no promise of reward in Scripture, but contrariwise, threatenings and maledictions.

53. All manner of expressing God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in an outward form, is utterly unlawful; as also all other images devised or made by man to the use of religion.21

Scottish Confession (1616)

We believe not that all these particular kirks on earth are pure; but these only which continue in the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, according to the holy canonical Scripture, ministering the sacraments, and worshipping God purely according to the same; and these be the true marks whereby a true visible kirk on earth may be discerned and known.

As concerning the worship of God, we confess and affirm that all religious worship or service is only to be given to God, as His proper due and glory, which He will communicate to no other; believing firmly that God is to be worshipped only according to His own will, revealed in His word.

And, therefore, we abhor all will-worship, all invocation of saints or angels, all worshiping of images, crucifixes, relics, and all other things which are beside the true God.22

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)— 21.1

I. THE light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might (Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68; Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; 18:3; Rom. 10:12; Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33). But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9–10; Deut. 15:1–20; Ex. 20:4–6; Col. 2:23).23

Westminster Larger Catechism (1647)— Q 109

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising (Num. 15:39), counselling (Deut. 13:6–8), commanding (Hos. 5:11; Mic. 6:16), using (1 Kings 11:33; 12:33), and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself (Deut. 12:30–32); tolerating a false religion (Deut. 13:6–12; Zech. 13:2–3; Rev. 2:2, 14–15, 20; 17:12, 16–17); the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever (Deut. 4:15–19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21–23, 25); all worshipping of it (Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8), or God in it or by it (Ex. 32:5); the making of any representation of feigned deities (Ex. 32:8), and all worship of them, or service belonging to them (1 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11); all superstitious devices (Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21–23), corrupting the worship of God (Mal. 1:7–8, 14), adding to it, or taking from it (Deut. 4:2), whether invented and taken up of ourselves (Ps. 106:39), or received by tradition from others (Matt. 15:9), though under the title of antiquity (1 Peter 1:18), custom (Jer. 44:17), devotion (Isa. 65:3–5; Gal. 1:13–14), good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever (1 Sam. 13:11–12; 15:21); simony (Acts 8:18); sacrilege (Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8); all neglect (Ex. 4:24–26), contempt (Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13), hindering (Matt. 23:13), and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed (Acts 13:44–45; 1 Thess. 2:15–16).24

Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647)— Q 51

Q. 51. What is forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images (Deut. 4:15–19; Ex. 32:5, 8), or any other way not appointed in his word (Deut. 12:31–32).25

Savoy Declaration (1658)— 22.2

II. Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and to Him alone; not to angels, saints, or any other creatures; and since the fall, not without a mediator, nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone.26

Second London Baptist Confession (1677)—22.2

2. Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to Him alone (Matt. 4:9–10; John 6:23; Matt. 28:19); not to angels, saints, or any other creatures (Rom. 1:25; Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10); and since the fall, not without a mediator (John 14:6), nor in the mediation of any other but Christ alone (1 Tim. 2:5).27

XXII. OF STATUES AND IMAGES

Finally, against statues and images our preachers have applied the holy oracles, chiefly because they began to be worshipped and adored openly, and vain expenditure was devoted to them that was due the hungry, thirsty and naked Christ; and lastly, because by their worship and the expenditure they required (both conflicting with God’s word) they seek merits with God. Against this religious error they have interposed also the authority of the ancient Church, which undoubtedly abominated the sight of any image, whether painted or graven, in the church, as the deed of Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, that he reports of himself, abundantly proves. For when he saw on a curtain in a certain church a painting of Christ or some saint (for he writes that he does not exactly remember), he was inflamed with such indignation because he saw an image of a man hanging in the church, contrary to the authority of the Scriptures and to our faith and religion, that he at once tore the curtain and ordered that the corpse of a poor man be wrapped therein. The letter in which this man of God narrates this of himself, writing to John, bishop of Jerusalem, St. Jerome has translated as genuine into the Latin, nor has he uttered a word in the least disapproving this judgment of Epiphanius concerning images. From this it is clearly inferred that neither St. Jerome himself nor the bishop of Jerusalem to whom he wrote thought otherwise concerning images. For the declaration that is commonly made that by statues and images the more rude are taught and instructed will not suffice to prove that they should be carried, especially where they are adored by the populace. God’s ancient people were of a ruder class, so that it was needful to instruct them by numerous ceremonies; nevertheless, God did not think that images were of such value to teach and instruct the more rude, since he forbad them among the very chief things. If the answer be made that God forbad such images as were worshipped, it immediately follows that when all have begun to adore them they should be universally removed from the churches, on account of the offence which they occasion. For all things in the Church should be directed to edification, much less should anything he tolerated which may give occasion for ruin and can contribute no advantage. Besides, as is generally objected concerning teaching, St. Athanasius, refuting the heathen defending their idols by this argument, thus rejects it: “Let them say, I ask, in what way God is known through images? Whether through the matter of which they consist or the form impressed upon the matter? If on account of the matter, what necessity now of form, since God has shone forth in the entire matter already, even before these were formed, since all things bear witness to his glory? Moreover, if the image that is produced is the cause of the divine knowledge, what need now of the picture and other material, for is not God known rather through those very animals whereof images are made? For God’s glory would indeed he more clearly seen through animated beings, rational and irrational, than be manifested through the inanimate and motionless. When, therefore, for the purpose of understanding God, you carve or mould images, you make what is in no way worthy of him.” Thus far Athanasius. Lactantius has also said much in opposition to this pretext, Divine Institutions, book ii. For with him who can be taught with profit, in addition to the word of exhortation, the living and true works of God themselves are of far more service than the vain images that men prepare. Since in so many passages of Scripture God has most fully testified that this is his opinion concerning images, it will not be proper for us men to seek profit from objects the peril of which God has commanded us to shun, especially when we ourselves have learned by experience how greatly they hinder godliness.

Our men also confess that in itself the use of images is free, but, free as it may be, the Christian must consider what is expedient, what edifies, and should use images in such place and manner as not to present a stumbling-block to any. For Paul was prepared to have both meat and wine prohibited him for his entire life if he knew that either in any way injured the welfare of others.

[7] CONCERNING IMAGES

Concerning images: it is reasonable for everyone to teach, as has been found, that images are forbidden by God—so that, after they have been instructed and strengthened, the unlearned and weak ones may soon accept what should be done with the images. For this purpose, the little book that recently came out, On the Abolition of Images, will serve well because it has much scriptural evidence. Whoever does not have this, let him read the following passages:

Exodus 20:23 (at the end on the silver idols); Exodus 34:12–17; Leviticus 19:4; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 4:3, 23–28; Deuteronomy 5:7–9; 1 Samuel 7:3–6; Numbers 25:4f.; Deuteronomy 7:5, 25f.; Deuteronomy 11:16f.; Deuteronomy 13:6–18; Deuteronomy 27:15; Joshua 24:23; Judges 10:6–16; Psalm 96:5; Psalm 115:4–8; Isaiah 42:17; Isaiah 44:9–20; Jeremiah 10:2–16; Jeremiah 13:10; Ezekiel 14; Ezekiel 6; Micah 1:5–7; Habakkuk 2:18f.; 2 Kings 18:4, 33–35; 2 Kings 10:15–30; 2 Kings 23:4–23; 2 Chronicles 31:1–7; 1 Corinthians 5:10f.; Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Corinthians 8:4f.; 1 Corinthians 10:19–21; 1 Corinthians 12:2; Galatians 5:1, 20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Peter 4:3; 1 John 5:21.

Of the passages noted, some forbid images or idols, some ridicule them, and some teach how one should abolish them. At the same time, however, one is to proceed carefully so that evil does not result. For until Christian people are instructed rightly, that one should not pay the images any honor, one may still have patience until the weak are also able to follow—so that the matter may be brought to a conclusion with unanimity. Some passages praise those who have got rid of images.

Here some disagree in the following way: “This command concerns only Jews and not us Christians.” One should answer thus: the two parts, “You shall not have foreign gods” [Exodus 20:3] and “You shall have no image or likeness” [Exodus 20:4], are like a safeguard and explanation of the first commandment, “You shall trust in one God.” Look at Deuteronomy 5:6, where God says: “I am your Lord God, who has led you out of Egypt, etc.” Observe that this is the first commandment, wherein God has set himself forth as our God. Now he forbids the things which want to lead us away from him and says immediately thereafter, “You shall not have other gods after me or in my sight” [Deut. 5:7]. And that is a way through which the children of Israel were often led away—and we Christians the same. For whoever has sought help and confidence from a creature which the believer ought to seek only with God, has made a foreign god for himself. For that is forever one’s god in which one takes refuge. Hence, that is one thing that may draw us from God: foreign gods.

The other thing that may lead us away is images. For that reason, God forbids them first: “You shall make no carved image, nor likeness or copy of the things which are in heaven, on the earth or in the water” [Deut. 5:8]. See, one is simply not to make any. And if in some way we must have an image before us, as happened to Daniel and others in Daniel Chapter 3, then he says: “You shall give them no honor”—neither genuflecting, bowing nor reverencing (for that is what the word schahah means), “and render them no service either.” The Latin words also sufficiently point this out: “You shall not worship them; also show them no honor.” If one has them in a church then one has already given the images honor. And, if one says “I do not worship them; they teach and admonish me,” that is all a fable. God does not speak here of worship, which we want to understand: he is above that, for he knows well that no wise person worships an image. However, he forbids here all manifestations of honor, so that one may not bow, genuflect, kneel, light candles or burn incense before them. If one is not honoring them, then what are they doing on the altar? Indeed, one is honoring them no less than pagans do their images of idols when they have called them by the name of idols. We have done likewise. We name the pieces of wood with the names of the blessed. One piece of wood we name Our Lady and the Mother of God, the other we name St. Nicholas, etc. And those who do this cry that we want to destroy the honor of the saints, but when they call idols by saints’ names they are already dishonoring the saints.

Moreover, it is also wrong that the pictures teach us. We should be taught solely by the word of God. Instead, the idle priests, who should have taught us unceasingly, have painted the teachings on the walls for us. And we poor simple people have therewith been deprived of the teaching and have fallen to images, and have honored them. We have begun to seek from creatures what we should have sought only from God. And though they often should have taught us, they omitted teaching and held the Mass frequently instead. We simple ones have not understood the Mass, and also the majority of them also, until it has come to the point that by far the majority of Christian people have not known the essential point as to how a person is saved. Indeed, with their fables of the saints, some have pitiably turned us from the true word of God to the creature.

But if one objects that images are not forbidden in the New Testament, this also is wrong. For where one finds in the New Testament idolum or simulachrum, there one should read in German bilder (“images”) or glychnussen (“likenesses”). Let no one be mistaken that if he finds in the newly published New Testament in the designated passages the words abgot (“idol”) or froembde (“foreign gods”) it should always read “images” or “likenesses” instead. Idolen, semeion, says Hesychius, “is the Latin ‘simulachrum’;” in German: a bild (“image”) or glychnus (“likeness”). Now compare 1 John 5:21: “Dear Children, be on your guard against images!” and other passages and see, therefore, whether or not images are also forbidden in the New Testament. Acts Chapter 15 is advice by the Christians at Jerusalem that Christians should be on guard against the defilement caused by images.

Furthermore, if we say “The saints’ images show us what they have done and suffered so that we do likewise,” then one should ask us when our works are righteous. We must always say: if they are done in faith which is also love for God, then they are pleasing to God according to 1 Corinthians Chapter 13. One asks us further: on what basis have the saints done such? We will say: out of true faith. Now let someone show us where they have painted or copied this faith. We cannot show it save in their hearts. Therefore it must always follow that we also must learn that faith is necessary in our hearts if we want to do anything pleasing to God. This we cannot learn from walls but only from the gracious pulling of God out of his own word. See. We recognize here that the image leads only to external weakness and cannot make the heart faithful. We see externally what the saints have done, but images cannot give us the faith wherein all things must come to pass. If we now have pure and undefiled faith, see, we will ridicule ourselves for having had so ignorant and weak a faith that we imagined images admonish us—when, in fact, everything without faith is vain.

Here one makes another objection: “Then it is not fitting for one to paint a story on his house, or to have any kinds of pictures painted or carved. In the Old Testament we see two cherubim and woven or embroidered cloths with the cherubim and bronze serpents, and buttons, lilies and violets on the menorah and garlands on the ephod. Also in 1 Kings Chapter 6, Solomon let them make cherubim, palm trees and numbers of paintings in the temple that were so beautiful they appeared to grow out of the walls. Therefore it is without doubt also fitting for us to have such paintings or images.” I answer: it is certain that God has only forbidden all forms and images, lest one begin to honor anything or render honor to any creature in addition to him, as one can well understand in Deuteronomy Chapter 4. Therefore we may well note that such forms as flower patterns, lions’ heads, wings and the like that never can be taken as God and as aids are not forbidden. For Solomon would not have let such trees and flowers be made in the temple, nor would God have ordered the making of the menorah, if they had produced the danger of idolatry. However, with regard to the images and the paintings which we have in churches, it is evident that they have created the danger of idolatry. Therefore, one should not leave them there any longer—nor in your chamber, in the marketplace, or anywhere one shows any kind of honor. Especially are they intolerable in the churches, for everything we have there is holy to us. Where anyone would have them outside the church as a representation of historical events without instruction for veneration, they may be tolerated. But whenever one begins to bow before them and to give them honor, then they are to be tolerated nowhere on earth. For then they are, in short, either an aid to idolatry, or idolatry itself.

An office instituted by Christ cannot be without authority. The discussion about the authority of the diaconate in the life of the church has recently come to the forefront. The discussion claims that the diaconate or deacons do not have authority and therefore can be open for ordination for women. I hope to show that deacons do, in fact, have real authority instituted by Christ, and therefore, the BCO is not improperly binding consciences, since it recognizes that authority. For the purpose of this article, I will be using this definition for what authority is: “Authority is a right given by God to lead, make decisions, and give direction within an appointed sphere, and those under it are called to submit, honor, and obey by following what is lawful and in keeping with God’s Word.”

The Authority of Church Government

When members take the membership vow, they enter into a solemn covenant with God and His Church.

Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

The form of Government the PCA uses is found in Part I of the BCO. The Westminster Confession of Faith explains that the government to which they are calling to submit is established by Christ and Christ alone.

The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers (WCF 30.1)

The Divines go on to express that these officers have the keys of the Kingdom, which in the PCA we believe belong to Ruling and Teaching Elders, the parity of elders caring for the souls of those entrusted by Christ in their care. The Westminster Standards distinguish between authority broadly considered and the specific authority of the keys of the kingdom. The latter belongs to elders; the former includes all lawful offices instituted by Christ.

Now, the Westminster Confession was not the only document written by the divines; they also wrote a Confession, a Directory for Worship, a Form of Government, and two Catechisms. Warfield called these documents the “four parts of uniformity.”1 The WCF focuses on the Church Censures in WCF 30. If we limit our understanding of officers according to the Westminster Confession, then the outcome of authority, meaning that of who can apply church censures, would exclude deacons. But also, the role and function of officers would be minimal in the eyes of the Confession. Whereas, if we see the officers fulfilling the functions that Christ has appointed for them, and the Westminster Divines wrote in their Form of Government, “The officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints.”2 The officers carry out two duties: edifying Christ’s Church and perfecting the saints. Church discipline falls under these two categories, but it is not the only thing the officers are to do. The Westminster Divines are expressing what Paul taught in Ephesians 4:11-13.

Church Offices are Given

The PCA carries forward this interpretation, holding that the officers are to edify Christ’s church and perfect the saints as the Preface of the BCO states, “He, being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church, and gave all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints.” If the PCA was to claim the officers spoken about in this portion were only regarding the office of those who have authority to apply a church censure (WCF 30), then we should amend our BCO by striking the ‘s’ in offices or we need to move to two office view with Pastor/Minister and Ruling Elder, and deacon ceases to be an office in the church.

However, a deacon is an office instituted by Christ (Acts 6:1–6, Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 3:8–13). Because they are an office instituted by Christ, the consciences of men are bound to recognize and submit to them in their lawful sphere. The BCO clearly explains that they have authority under Preliminary Principle Six: “the power to elect persons to the exercise of authority in any particular society resides in that society.” As a congregation elects a man to a particular office, they are granting permission for that man to have authority over them, in their calling as an officer.

We can also see this worked out through the process of ordination, as the BCO defines ordination, “Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship” (BCO 17-2). Ordination is then the authoritative admission to the office instituted by Christ, carrying not the authority of the people who laid their hands on the man, but Christ himself sets the man apart and calls him his servant, to serve alongside his brothers, and to edify the church and perfect the saints. The presbyters who lay hands on them to ordain the men to their particular office can only do so with the consent of the congregation in which they are to serve.

The Nature of Diaconal Authority

Once more, the BCO helps us understand the functions the diaconate serves in edifying the church and perfecting the saints. “The office of deacon is set forth in the Scriptures as ordinary and perpetual in the Church. The office is one of sympathy and service, after the example of the Lord Jesus; it expresses also the communion of saints, especially in their helping one another in time of need” (BCO 9-1). We need to briefly note that the BCO clearly teaches that the office of deacon is not founded on circumstances, but on the Scriptures, and because the office is not circumstantial, the functions and the qualifications need to be found in Scripture either expressly set down or through good and necessary consequence (WCF 1.6). Their office and their functions are ones of sympathy and service. Some people point out that the office is one of sympathy and service and therefore has no authority. I think, however, they confuse governing with authority. Not all authority is judicial. There are many positions in our lives to which we owe honor and obedience that do not have judicial authority. A father, a master, or a civil officer may command and direct without exercising judicial discipline in every act. Authority is not exhausted by the power to censure, but includes the right to direct and the duty of others to obey in lawful matters.

The authority of the deacon is ordinary and proper to their office. Though under the oversight of the session, deacons are entrusted with a defined sphere of administration in which they must exercise judgment, direction, and leadership. This is why the BCO stipulates that if a church is unable to secure godly men to serve as deacons for any reason, the duties do not fall upon the congregation, but upon men who have been elected by the church to exercise authority (BCO 9-2, cf PP6).

The test then of authority, in the eyes of the Westminster Standards, is found in the exposition of the Fifth Commandment, as they term them Superiors, Inferiors, and equals. Any person who is deserving of honor is a superior. In their various calling which God has placed them, those who are inferior are to obey them.

“The honour which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defence, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honour to them and to their government” (WLC 127)

Deacons are to be shown honor as taught in the fifth commandment. They are to be shown this encouragement, honor, and obedience because Christ has appointed them to this position on his behalf. We see this in the ordination service of deacons as members vow before God when a man is ordained as an officer in Christ’s church;

Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and receive this brother as a deacon, and do you promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement and obedience in the Lord to which his office, according to the Word of God and the Constitution of this Church, entitles him?

Even following their ordination, the minister is to say,

I now pronounce and declare that ____________________ has been regularly elected, ordained and installed a deacon in this church, agreeable to the Word of God, and according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America; and that as such he is entitled to all encouragement, honor and obedience in the Lord: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

I have written about the ordination service before and the importance of the practice found in BCO chapters 21 and 24.

Communion of Saints

As the BCO (9-2) expresses, the deacons express the communion of saints, particularly in assisting those in the church in need. The WCF helps see the diaconate work in their Chapter 26, “The Communion of the Saints.”

“They have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man” (WCF 26.1)

“Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities” (WCF 26.2).

The Church is duty-bound to these tasks, and thus Christ instituted the office of Deacon to carry them out and to help equip the saints for their work of ministry. We often think of the diaconate taking care of budgets and buildings, but their duty is much more than that, as the BCO expresses.

“It is the duty of the deacons to minister to those who are in need, to the sick, to the friendless, and to any who may be in distress. It is their duty also to develop the grace of liberality in the members of the church, to devise effective methods of collecting the gifts of the people, and to distribute these gifts among the objects to which they are contributed” (BCO 9-2).

The diaconate is not to carry out this ministry in isolation, as though the care of the saints were confined to a few good men. Rather, they are entrusted with the authority to cultivate and order the Church’s participation in works of mercy. In this way, they “develop the grace of liberality” among the members, not merely by example, but by instruction and direction. They equip the saints for the work of ministry by calling members to their duty of Christian love and organizing the Church’s response to need within the household of faith.

This necessarily entails authority. To instruct, to organize, and to direct the Church in the exercise of mercy is not a passive function, but an active and ordered leadership within a defined sphere. The diaconate, therefore, leads the Church in its ministry of compassion, ensuring that the communion of saints is practiced, not merely professed. In doing so, they serve alongside the elders, not in competition with them. Their partnership with the elders enables elders to devote themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer, while the deacons faithfully administer the ministry of mercy for the edification of the body.

Conclusion

The authority of the diaconate is a necessary implication of Christ’s institution of His Church. If Christ has appointed offices for the edification of His body, and if authority is not limited to the exercise of discipline, then the diaconate must be understood as possessing real, though distinct, authority within its appointed sphere. To deny such authority is not only to diminish the office, but to obscure the wisdom of Christ in ordering His Church. Therefore, the Church rightly recognizes, honors, and submits to the diaconate, as those entrusted by Christ to lead in the ministry of mercy for the good of His people and the glory of His name.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is an amazing document. Ever since I first read it, it has been a great source of rich theology pointing me to the truths of God’s word. When I discovered it, I was among a few in my circles who shared confessional Reformed convictions. During the time of the young, restless, and Reformed movement. My journey began by surrendering my own interpretations of certain verses, letting the Bible speak for itself, and using a principle I would later understand as Scripture interpreting Scripture. Through this surrender, I became convinced of God’s sovereignty over all things, the beauty of Christ in all of Scripture, and other things. I was encouraged and amazed when I first read the Westminster Standards and realized I was not alone; the doctrines I found in Scripture were beautifully written and centuries old. Since that time, I have been amazed by this man-made document, which teaches the truths of Scripture.

While the Westminster Confession is a great document, few chapters of the Confession are more frequently appealed to, or more frequently misunderstood, than Chapter 20 on Christian liberty. In this article, I hope to engage with the whole chapter 20 of the Confession and challenge a broad interpretation that treats Christian liberty as either individual autonomy or ecclesiastical veto power.

Section 1

To begin with, we need to understand the Christological foundation the Divines use to teach this important doctrine. We often think of applying this in many ways, but the reformation was vitally important to the freedom of the Christian who is purchased by Christ. Many people might know of Martin Luther’s work, “The Bondage of the Will”; however, one of my favorite writings of Luther is “The Freedom of the Christian.”1 This small work sums up the important truth of the reformation that the Westminster Divines summarize in Section One: Christian liberty consists in freedom from sin’s guilt, God’s wrath, the curse of the law, bondage to Satan, and eternal damnation. It includes free access to God and joyful obedience as His children. Under the New Testament, this liberty is enlarged by freedom from the ceremonial law, greater boldness in prayer, and fuller enjoyment of the Spirit. Chapter 20 actually begins in chapter one of the confession, expressing that the Word of God is the only rule of faith and life. You could sit and ponder chapter 20, and its connections to the whole Westminster Standards, for a whole year and be moved to a more reverent, grateful thankfulness for what Christ has done for us, purchasing our liberty from our own sin and now gladly bound to him as the Lord of our conscience. He has redeemed us from ourselves, our sin, Satan, and the ceremonial law. Christ purchased our freedom.

Section 2

Section two, although 80 words, packs a big punch. The doctrine of Christian liberty begins with the doctrine of God. God alone rules over all things; therefore, no one can usurp authority over a Christian to bind their conscience. This principle was one that many Puritans knew all too well, with the Church of England binding their consciences in worship through its ceremonies and rites, vestments, additional forms of worship such as holy days, candles, and more.2 Not only godly ministers but congregants in the pew, who came to be able to worship the living and Triune God, had their consciences bound with doctrines, commandments, traditions, and imaginations of man. The chief end of man, to glorify God and enjoy him forever, was seared but by these imaginative ceremonies and rites.

Because of God’s supremacy over all things and His word as the supreme rule of faith and practice (WCF 1.9), God alone is Lord of the conscience. Neither man nor the church can bind the consciences of others, for anything contrary to his word or beside it (Cf. WCF 1.6), in matters of faith and worship. Interestingly, when the divines write, they always use the twofold terms faith and life (WCF 1.2, 1.6), obedience (WLC 3), and the Catechisms follow this pattern in what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of Man (WLC 5; WSC 3). The WLC explains that the first commandment forbids “making men the lords of our faith and conscience” (WLC 105). Even using this pairing in other portions of faith and repentance (WCF 16.5), faith and reverence (WCF 21.5). WCF 20.2 ensures that faith and worship are not to cause another’s conscience to be bound, apart from what Scripture explicitly taught or good and necessary consequence (WCF 1.6). Particularly through the addition to Scripture in faith and worship. Circumstances fall under the general principles of the word but can be understood through the light of nature and Christian Prudence. Christian liberty, therefore, does not grant a right to impose one’s private interpretation upon the church, nor does it give license to restrain others as a matter of conscience where Scripture has not spoken (WCF 1.6).

The Westminster Confession carefully applies a two-fold principle to Christian liberty. On the one hand, it places responsibility upon the individual Christian; on the other, it imposes a solemn duty upon those who exercise authority in the church. As the Confession explains, “to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience.” In this sense, the believer is accountable before God for what he believes and obeys. Yet this liberty also requires that those entrusted with authority, particularly within the church, recognize their obligation to guard, rather than burden, the consciences of others (cf. the Fifth Commandment). Therefore, the divines warn that “the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” Church authority, therefore, is not absolute, nor may it demand submission apart from or beyond the Word of God.

Chad Van Dixhoorn helpfully cautions that violations of Christian liberty do not always arise from malicious intent. He notes that “this sort of conscience coercion can happen almost accidentally by well-meaning people who are over-prescriptive in giving advice. It can also happen deliberately by power-hungry people who want to control and manipulate crowds in the church. At its worst, this suppression of Christian liberty of conscience has been institutionalized.”3 His warning is not an accusation, but a reminder of how easily good intentions can drift into improper authority.

Within the PCA, we should therefore seek to guard the church from any practice, whether at the denominational, presbytery, or sessional level, that binds the conscience where God has not spoken (WCF 1.6). Particularly to those in the pews. While church courts possess real authority, that authority is ministerial and declarative, not legislative or magisterial. The church is called to proclaim and apply God’s Word, not to add to it or to impose forms of worship or belief that are contrary to Scripture or beside it in matters of faith and worship. Faithful oversight, exercised humbly and within biblical bounds, protects both the purity of the church and the liberty of Christ’s people.

Section 3

The Westminster divines understood the human heart; therefore, they did not stop at §2 of the chapter on Christian Liberty. It is no accident that this cluster of chapters (the Law of God, Christian Liberty, Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day, and Lawful Oaths and Vows) stands together in the Confession. Christian liberty is not the freedom to believe or to practice whatever we please. Because God alone is Lord of the conscience, it is God alone who has given us His Word by which the conscience is ruled and governed. The divines were equally aware that Christian liberty may be abused, not only by authority but also by autonomy. Liberty may be used as a pretext for sin, for the indulgence of personal preference, or for the invention of religious practices not instituted by Christ. Yet Christ has not purchased His people that they might serve themselves, but that they might serve Him. As the Confession reminds us, the moral law continues to bind believers as a rule of life (WCF 19.5).

This truth is often missed in discussions of the Ten Commandments. The law does not begin with demand, but with grace. God first declares His mighty act of redemption, before He commands obedience (WLC 101; WSC 44). Redemption precedes obedience. Rowland Ward captures this balance well: “Freedom is not license; spiritual freedom is not throwing off all constraint.”4 True liberty is not the absence of rule, but joyful submission to the rightful rule of Christ. All things in the church: faith, worship, and practice, are to be brought under His authority, as revealed in His Word. This can be a great blessing: brothers and sisters in Christ can serve in a denomination they believe is faithful to the Scriptures. Within NPARC and other Presbyterian Denominations, there is much overlap but a variety of practices.

In an age in which the modern self has triumphed, this truth is easily cloaked.5 Many hold the same Bible and yet justify varying practices and beliefs; others hold the Bible while proclaiming a different gospel altogether (2 Tim 4:3–4; 2 Pet 3:16). But Scripture teaches that we have been freed from sin in order that we might “walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4), “serving the Lord in holiness and righteousness before him all our days” (Luke 1:74–75).

Section 4

The divines go on to unpack what lawful authority looks like, not tyrannical authority and not self-autonomy, but God-appointed authority. Once more, we may be tempted to point only to Sections One and Two of this chapter, but we must also understand that God has given us His Word. God-ordained authority is still to be followed and obeyed as it sits under God and His Word. Notice the rule of God again: God is Lord of the conscience, but He has also ordained those whom we should lawfully obey. The courts of the church are to decide “cases of conscience” (WCF 31.2). There are situations in which those who hold erroneous or destructive opinions and practices that harm the peace, order, or godliness of the Church may rightly be corrected by ecclesiastical censures. We see this again in the vows we take as officers in the church, even where practices that harm the peace, order, or godliness of the church may be addressed through the process of discipline. Notice, it is not in holding their own opinion, but how that opinion affects the peace, order, and godliness of the Church. Not merely limited to whether they practice it or not, but the effect it has on the Body of Christ.

WCF 31.2 also says that the rulings of the courts, “if constant to the word of God are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.” This includes circumstances in which the church courts have set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of His Church. 6

Christian liberty does not require a denomination or church court to adopt a particular view, or multiple views. Liberty of conscience concerns what one is required to believe or to do, not what one is permitted to advocate or to disagree about, particularly when such views harm the peace, order, or godliness of the church (WCF 31.2). Here we see the beauty of the Confession: it does not elevate a person’s private opinions as ecclesiastically binding norms in areas where Scripture is not indifferent, nor does it permit those who are servants of God to abuse their authority by forcing belief or practice upon others against their conscience.

Excursus:

Questions concerning the church office and the qualifications for holding it are not matters of mere circumstance, but of faith and obedience governed by Scripture. God is not silent on who may hold office in His church, nor is he silent on the functions of those who hold office; these are explicitly set down in Scripture or through good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture. As the Preface to the BCO states, Christ,

“being ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things, received gifts for His Church, and gave all offices necessary for the edification of His Church and the perfecting of His saints… Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances.”

Christ has given His church the necessary offices.

When the church, acting ministerially and declaratively, applies the Word of God to order its government, it does not violate liberty of conscience. A violation occurs only when a man is compelled to believe or to act against what he is persuaded Scripture teaches. Because denominational affiliation is voluntary, a man bears responsibility to guard his conscience by serving within a church whose confessional commitments and practice accord with his understanding of God’s Word. It is not the denomination to shape their government from a man’s private convictions, but from the Word of God. A man may be free to hold a different view privately, but should seek to protect the peace, order, and godliness of the Church, or else submit to the lawful discipline of the church. Thus, both truths are preserved: Christ has given real authority to His church, and God alone remains Lord of the conscience.

I have written more on these topics before:

Conclusion

True liberty is found not in the absence of authority, but in submission to the rightful authority of Christ, the risen King, bestowed upon His people. All doctrine, government, discipline, and worship in the church must come under His rule as revealed in Scripture. The BCO Preface says it beautifully,

“It belongs to His Majesty from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church through His Word and Spirit by the ministry of men; thus mediately exercising His own authority and enforcing His own laws, unto the edification and establishment of His Kingdom.”

The Apostolic Constitution is a document written circa 375-380. This document can be a helpful historical source for understanding the life of the church in the late 4th century, within the region of Syria. Church life and practice are difficult to understand because they are not discussed in great detail. Even today, we might say, “We went to church on the Lord’s Day.” We do not discuss in detail how we worship or what happens in a church service because of the historical evidence available. Imagine being a church historian years from now, having to find church bulletins to shape our understanding of what particular churches did in their worship. You might find some clues or ideas, but the title of ‘baptism’ could mean a variety of practices. Of course, we have differences, but we often can explain the variations in a few sentences. In Church history, we do not have the exact details of every aspect of the church, and when we do, they are from a particular perspective. This is why Justin Marty's ‘First Apology’ is an important historical source: he explains to outsiders what happens in the church on the Lord’s day.1 The Apostolic Constitution provides a great deal of information on how a particular group of people understood the structure of the church and liturgical practices.

The Apostolic Constitution is an early church book of order, claims apostolic authorship, but is universally considered pseudepigraphal. The Apostolic Constitution is based on an earlier document, the Didascalia Apostolorum, a third-century church order likely composed in Syria around the mid-200s. I briefly discuss this document in the post below.

Book III of the Apostolic Constitutions focuses on two main areas of church life. The first section addresses the role of widows within the church, describing their qualifications, character, and spiritual vocation. Widows are portrayed as women devoted to prayer, humility, and holiness, who respond to the church’s charitable support with intercession and thanksgiving. Their life is to be marked by quiet service and sincerity before God rather than public recognition.2

The second portion of the book turns to the roles of deacons and deaconesses and their relationship to the bishop. These officers assist the bishop in practical ministry, particularly in caring for the poor and distributing alms. Deacons also assist in the administration of baptism and other practical aspects of the church’s worship. In this context, deaconesses are described as assisting with the baptism of women, a practice connected to the modesty concerns of the early church, since baptism was commonly administered with minimal clothing.3

While this does mention the role of Deaconesses in the Church, it is not that they share the same responsibilities as Deacons. The Constitution makes it clear about their responsibilities and functions, stating, “Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministrations towards women. Sometimes he cannot send a deacon, who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. Thou shalt therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of the bad.”4 The one major responsibility of a deaconess is the ministry towards other women; her role in baptism was based upon the need for modesty in the unique situation practiced by the church at the time. It is clear that only the Bishop or Presbytery may baptize the person; the deacon or deaconess is to assist for practical reasons.5 They previously explained, “Now, as to women’s baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious.”6

The practice is not universal in the church at the time, but often geographically concentrated. More importantly, a selective argument for the practice of deaconesses from the Apostolic Constitution, based on the document's concept, holds that deaconesses are ordained. Besides many other arguments I have made before in previous articles. I will make two.

The first is that the Constitution is clear that the function of these deaconesses was not our modern-day practice. The Constitution clearly states, “We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church,” (1 Cor. 14.34) but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such.”7 The Constitution continues to explain what type of prayer the woman shall pray, “Let the widow therefore own herself to be the “altar of God,” and let her sit in her house, and not enter into the houses of the faithful, under any pretence, to receive anything; for the altar of God never runs about, but is fixed in one place.”8

The second is the origins of the document itself; even if this was a clear document that laid out the practice of the ordination of women to the office of deacon, this does not validate the practice in the reformed church. The document is written as if the apostles themselves wrote this book of church order. Later in Book 8, section three, we read, “Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shall say:—”9

“O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; [Ex. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; Luke 2:36; 2 Kings 22:14.] who didst not disdain that Thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be keepers of Thy holy gates,—do Thou now also look down upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy Holy Spirit, and “cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,” [2 Cor. 7:1.] that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to Thy glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to Thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.”10

Someone penned these words and claimed to be the apostle Bartholomew, seeking to show their authority in the matter. Now, while this might seem strange to use today, it may have been common at the time, as people knew it was not truly from his hand, as one manuscript explained: “Bartholomew preached the Gospel according to Matthew to the Indians, who also have been buried in India.” We will put this issue aside, although I think it does require some thought to assess the validity of using the document to defend current practices. However, if we are to say that the Apostolic Constitution mentions deaconesses, or use it as evidence of the practice in church history, then we must also resurrect many other offices. Not to mention the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter, or Reader and Sub-Deacon. What about other roles explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, although not ordained, maybe our churches should return to the practice of having “confessors”, “virgins”, “widows”, or even an “exorcist.”11 The reality is that the Presbyterian Church does have a Book of Church Order, and it does not mention these functions, or offices, only Elder and Deacon.

Conclusion

The reformation changed the world in drastic ways that we do not truly understand. The teaching of Sola Scriptura shaped not just the doctrine of justification but the church and her structure. Church history, quite plainly, says this is what a particular group at a particular time believed or practiced. But the Reformation said that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. History says what was done, Scripture says what should be done. Finding additions to church history is easy; with the creation of new offices, there is no end, especially when you combine church tradition and human imagination. The offices of the church are not circumstantial, and therefore need to be established by the Word, either expressly set down, or by good and necessary circumstance (WCF 1.6). An office is not merely a title given to a person; with it comes authority and responsibility to carry out that calling; hence, an elder or a deacon can be charged through church discipline if they do not fulfill their duties (BCO 34-10, 24-7). Christ would need to give not only the title of the said office but also the function of that office, or else how would you be able to discipline someone not according to the word of God? I will finish with the standard quote from the Preface of the BCO,

Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.

The famous Council of Nicaea (325) is well known to all of us, particularly after last year's 1700-year anniversary. If the councils were like pop artists, they are normally known for one thing: for Nicaea, the famous Nicene creed. However, we don’t recite the original; we recite the later version, updated in Constantinople (381), and later, with the inclusion known as the Filioque clause (589/1024), which was one of the issues that led to the Great Schism between the Western and the Eastern Church in 1054.

What most people don’t know is that other canons were written and adopted by the Nicene Council. Twenty (20) to be exact. The ones that will be of interest to us are canon 19, as it addresses the topic of deaconesses. Historically, this is an important marker because it clearly shows that some parts of the church have women serving as deaconesses. Unlike Pliny, who was a Roman governor using the Latin term “ministrae”. Pliny had never attended a new member's class and knew little about Christians. Pliny was an uniformed outsider.

However, the Council of Nicaea is different. Nicaea is a group of around 318 church leaders who discuss deep theological truths. The Nicene Creed set the boundaries of orthodoxy as taught in Scripture. The Creed is confessed in numerous languages across the globe every Lord’s Day. However, many know the famous Creed; the Canons are less popular. This article will look at Canon 19 and its importance for today's discussion of the use of the title deaconess and their functions in the church. I hope to show that Canon 19 clarifies the reception status of Paulianist deaconesses and does not establish or endorse an ecclesial office.

Historical Context

The canons that follow begin to address issues within the church, such as the Meletian Schism. Canon 19 addresses a heretical group in Antioch, Syria, known as the Paulianists, named after Paul of Samosata (200–275). After his death, a group known as the Paulianists continued his teaching. His major error would be classed as Monarchianism, particularly the classification of Adoptionism technically (dynamic monarchianism). Paul of Samosata taught that God is one indivisible being of a single nature. In this framework, the Son was not co-eternal with the Father but rather understood as the man Jesus, who, because of God’s purpose and his own perfect life and obedience, was exalted and granted divine dignity.

Canon 19

This is where canon 19 comes in regarding how the church handles this group of people and their inclusion into the church. How would they handle those groups who called themselves Christians but were in fact heretics?

Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed.1

The canons address pastoral matters, including how to handle situations in which different groups have ordained clergy or claim to be Christians but fall outside scriptural orthodoxy. The canons address examinations and ensuring that the clergy adheres to the teaching of the church. Somewhat of an early version of what we would call subscription. The previous canon (18) makes it clear the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in contrast to deacons, who were not to administer the Lord’s supper, and even prohibited from touching the elements prior to the bishop or elder.

In Canon 19, quoted above, you see that those seeking to join the Catholic Church must be ‘rebaptized’ because their first baptism was not a Trinitarian baptism. It also expresses that if any had been clergy, then they need to be tested to see if they are qualified for the office, and ‘rebaptized’ and ordained.

The canon then speaks of deaconesses, and other titles that might of been used by the Paulianists,

Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.2

We need to understand that what this canon expresses is not a book of order as we would know it, but rather the question of the reception of this group seeking to join the church. They express what they mean as deaconess, as those who have assumed the habit. An ancient epitome of this canon says, “Deaconesses who have been led astray, since they are not sharers of ordination, are to be reckoned among the laity.”3 Canon 19 should not be read as the church's overall approval of such a role, but rather as the church's handling of the group seeking to become members of the church. The council is clear that these women, who were called deaconesses, were to join the church as laity, and not clergy.

Excursus: Didascalia Apostolorum

The Didascalia Apostolorum is a third-century church order, likely composed in Syria around the mid-200s. Though written in the voice of the apostles and long regarded as preserving apostolic instruction, modern scholarship understands it as a later document reflecting developing ecclesial practice. The original Greek text is lost, and the work survives chiefly in Syriac translation. As one of the earliest sustained witnesses to the role of deaconesses, the Didascalia provides important background for interpreting Canon 19 of Nicaea. The Didascalia states, “Andrew said, It would be very good, my brethren, that we should appoint women as Deaconesses.”4

Chapter 16 speaks of the appointment of Deacons and Deaconesses. The chapter makes it clear the distinctions, “The man who is elected is for many oversights that are required, but a woman for the service of the women; for there are houses where thou canst not send a Deacon to the women on account of the heathen.”5 Deaconesses were to assist in the baptism of women. The administration of baptism was to be done by the Priest,6 but the deaconess was given clear instructions of their function, “And when she that is baptized arises from the water let the Deaconess receive her, and teach her and educate her, in order that the unbreakable seal of baptism be with purity and holiness.”7 The Didascalia expresses that the Deaconess, is “necessary and obligatory.”8 It expresses that as Christ was served by women, so to the church has women who serve. The Disacscalia is clear of what ways women were to serve in the life of the church, “for in the houses of the heathen, where there are believing women, a Deaconess is required, that she may go in and visit those who are sick, and serve them with whatever they need, and anoint (S. wash) those who are healed from sicknesses.”9

While the title was used, it is clear that the function was seen to practically assist ordained leaders, particularly as they serve other women in their community or in the church. They had no liturgical functions other than assisting at baptisms.

The role of women serving as deaconesses in the church is evident in the churches of the latter half of the third and fourth centuries. While the practice is more regional, such as in Antioch, Syria, than universal. Some church fathers mention them, such as Chrysostom.

While the practice is found in the Eastern Churches, it is neither widespread nor institutionalized in the Western Church. However, though the title is used, in some regions, it is clear that the functions of those who assist the ordained leaders are not ordained and are viewed as laity. Their roles are to serve other women, where it might be inappropriate for men to serve in those situations, such as during baptism by immersion.

Synodical Letter

The council wrote a letter to accompany the creed and canons, addressed various parties, including a schismatic group associated with Meletius of Lycopolis (Egypt). This synodical letter, while addressing a different schism than the Syrian–Deaconesses, reveals the broader Nicene concern for regulating claims to ecclesial office and authority. Unlike Paul of Samosata, who was heretical, Meletius was treated with more leniency. Meletius, began ordaining people outside of Church authority, mainly Alexandrian authority. While this letter does not discuss the Paulianist Deaconesses, it is helpful to see the broader context of the council as it relates to how they understood offices in the church are established. In this synodical letter, they provide this instruction:

“So that these men are to have no authority to make appointments of persons who may be pleasing to them, nor to suggest names, nor to do anything whatever, without the consent of the bishops of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, who are serving under our most holy colleague Alexander; while those who, by the grace of God and through your prayers, have been found in no schism, but on the contrary are without spot in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have authority to make appointments and nominations of worthy persons among the clergy, and in short to do all things according to the law and ordinance of the Church.”10

Whereas the council is clear that individuals do not have the right to establish or appoint people to positions of authority without the permission of the Church in Alexandria. This reflects early tendencies toward regional episcopal oversight that later ecclesial developments would expand in various ways, including the magisterial authority in the Catholic church, which established a plethora of non-biblical offices and a non-biblical church hierarchy.

The Reformation sought to return to Scripture, particularly to Christ's ordinances. Whereas the Synodical letter stipulated that Miletus was not to appoint any person to any clerical role without permission, the reformed Presbyterians stated that no man/ecclesiastical body has any right to carry out such a role. The authority of the church is solely ministerial and declarative, meaning Christ is the sole king and head of his church. Paulianists communities included women designated as deaconesses, and Miletus of Lycopolis was carrying out unlawful ordinations of his own, a variety of offices, some of which appeared he had created himself.

There was much discussion and debate among Presbyterians regarding the number of offices. They did not return to Canon 19, but to the Holy Scriptures. The Reformers had a variety of views, as some saw the Evangelist as an extraordinary office; three prevailing views were commonly represented in some form or another. Calvin (Doctor/Teacher, Minister/Pastor, Elder, and Deacon), Knox (Minister/Pastor, Elder, and Deacon), and American Presbyterians such as the PCA (Elders; two classes, Teaching and Ruling, and Deacons). To my knowledge, during this time, no Presbyterian Reformers regarded the ecclesiastical office of deaconess as biblical.

To my knowledge, no Reformed Presbyterian church had a distinction of deaconess in its book of church order until the 20th Century. While the RPCNA adopted the practice in 1888, the adoption of the Testimony of the RPCNA (1980) and the Directory for Church Government did not occur in the 20th Century. The ARP changed its form of government in the early 1970s. The PUSA and PCUS have a different story, which is the historical foundation for the establishment of the PCA and their position on who is qualified to serve in the ordained office.

Conclusion

Canon 19 is helpful to be able to see that there was a small heretical sect of people who called themselves Christians who had women serve as deaconesses. The council was clear that if they truly were professing Trinitarian Christians, then they should be welcomed into the church and be admitted through baptism. However, it was also very clear that deaconesses were not ordained officers in the church and were to be considered as laity. Canon 19 speaks about the reception of a heterodox community, not the constitution of an office. This was not an establishment of the role of deaconesses, nor could we say it was an approval of such a role. Even if it was, we know the function of this role was to assist ordained officers with sensitive matters involving women in the church. The modern discussion appears drastically different from the ancient evidence. Whereas early witnesses describe deaconesses primarily in relation to practical concerns of modesty, access, and assistance, contemporary discussions frequently engage the category through questions of representation, visibility, seats at the table, office, and parity. Those who use historical references such as canon 19 rarely cite it to see deaconesses serve as they did in 325, but to see a whole different role and function expressly set down in scripture, nor found through good or necessary consequence. As I have mentioned many times before, Christ has ordained his officers and offices for his church to edify and build up the church so they can carry out the ministry to which they are called.

John Chrysostom (c. AD 347–407), whose name means “golden-mouthed,” is remembered as one of the greatest preachers of the early Church. Born in Antioch, he was trained in classical rhetoric before devoting himself to the ministry of the Word. He served first as a presbyter in Antioch and later, reluctantly, as Archbishop of Constantinople, where his uncompromising preaching and passion eventually led to his exile and death.

Chrysostom has left the Church an extensive body of homilies on nearly every major portion of Scripture, especially the Pauline Epistles. These sermons are marked by a clear, text-driven exposition, shaped by the Antiochene tradition, which emphasized the literal sense of Scripture over allegory. His preaching is indeed rich in pastoral warmth and moral application, frequently pressing the doctrinal meaning of a passage into concrete exhortation concerning humility, charity, prayer, and holiness of life. Chrysostom’s interpretations are notable for attention to grammar, context, and rhetoric, as well as for their sustained concern for the life of the Church. His exegesis often moves from explanation to admonition.

Given Chrysostom’s careful and contextual approach to Scripture, it is important that his writings be read with similar attentiveness to context, function, and purpose. While Chrysostom clearly recognizes women’s diaconal service, modern appeals to his authority often focus on his language of rank without equal attention to how he understood the function, limits, and non-authoritative character of that ministry within the life of the Church.

Chrysostom and διακονία

In modern discussions, Chrysostom is frequently cited in debates concerning deaconesses, particularly with reference to Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Too often, however, individual statements are taken out of their historical and theological context and pressed to justify contemporary practices. The argument commonly proceeds as follows: Person X held position A; therefore, we may rightly hold position B. Such reasoning uses the authority of a historical theologian while failing to understand what that man believed and practiced

This tendency is evident in appeals to Chrysostom. In his homily on Romans 16, Chrysostom speaks of Phoebe with great honor and affirms that she served the Church through a recognized ministry. Notably, however, he does not employ the feminine term διακόνισσα in this passage, but rather uses the common-gender διάκονος and the language of διακονία, emphasizing the dignity and usefulness of her service rather than defining a distinct ecclesiastical office.1

In his homilies on 1 Timothy 3, Chrysostom acknowledges and explains an order of women serving the Church, which, when read alongside his other writings, he understands to refer to deaconesses (διακόνισσαι). Chrysostom explains the ministry of such women in functional and ecclesial terms, stating that “that order is necessary and useful and honorable in the Church.”2 At the same time, he carefully distinguishes this ministry from the teaching and ruling offices, maintaining the Church’s established order.

One of the most helpful ways to understand what Chrysostom believed concerning the ministry of the service of διακονία is found not primarily in his commentaries, but in his letters, especially those addressed to Olympias, a noble woman who held the rank of διακονία.3 There is no question that Chrysostom held Olympias in the highest esteem. Throughout the letters, he addresses her with deep respect and affection and offers her explicit pastoral instruction, particularly on suffering. He exhorts her in her posture toward God, calling her to thanksgiving, prayer, and steadfast endurance under affliction. He offers practical counsel regarding her bodily health, encouraging the use of physicians, medicine, and proper diet, and explicitly rejects the notion that neglect of health constitutes piety. He entrusts her with responsibilities that require discretion and confidence, particularly in handling and delivering sensitive correspondence. He also expects her to interact with wavering bishops and clergy, sometimes even warning them or helping to restrain disorderly or imprudent actions. Olympias is not portrayed as passive; she is active, trusted, and faithful in her service, and Chrysostom presents her as an example worthy of imitation by both men and women.

At the same time, Chrysostom is careful to define the manner of her ministry. Her service is real and influential; however, it is not the type of public ministry we see today. He praises her precisely for exercising a wide and beneficial influence without assuming a public platform, writing that she serves the Church,

“And the wonder is that without thrusting yourself into the forum, or occupying the public centres of the city, but sitting all the while in a small house and confined chamber you serve and anoint the combatants for the contest, and whilst the sea is thus raging round you, and the billows are rising to a crest, and crags and reefs, and rocky ledges and fierce monsters appear on every side, and everything is shrouded in the most profound darkness you, setting the sails of patience, float on with great serenity, as if it was noonday, and calm weather, and a favourable breeze wafting you on, and so far from being overwhelmed by this grievous tempest are not even sprinkled by the spray; and very naturally so; such is the force of virtue as a rudder.”4

You can see why they called him the golden mouth preacher. Chrysostom pointed to her ministry as she strengthened and equipped Christ’s servants for spiritual warfare through faithful, sacrificial service. It proceeds through patience, charity, endurance, counsel, and wise action, rather than through public speech or leadership. Notably, despite the remarkable detail Chrysostom provides regarding her service, there is no example of Olympias participating in the leading of worship or exercising ministerial functions within the Church. Her role corresponds closely to what we would today describe as assistance to the diaconal work of the Church (cf. BCO 9–7), carried out with dignity, discretion, and significant influence, while remaining clearly distinct from the ordained offices that govern and lead the Church’s public worship.

Selective quotations

The sad reality is that many conduct our historical research using Ctrl+F rather than by deeply engaging with a theologian and his positions. We select the portions we intend to quote that support our positions, rather than asking probing questions. I remember Derek Thomas challenging the class he was teaching on how we read and interact with theologians, as he sought to make the point that if you were to ask Calvin his views on supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism, he would look at you strangely: first, because he did not speak English, and second, because that debate was not a common one in his day. Can a historian determine where Calvin would stand in the debate? Of course. But it does not come from picking isolated passages from his writings, but from seeking to understand how Calvin thought. The question should be: How would Calvin answer this theological question? Rather than, How do I want Calvin to answer this question? In this instance, with Chrysostom, people will often quote him for his position on Romans 16:15 while neglecting his positions on 1 Corinthians 146 and 1 Timothy 2.7

However, my concern is that the argument often fails to engage the Scriptural basis; it is simply asserted that a certain theologian held a particular view, and therefore the view must be accepted. I believe historical theology is a great blessing to the Church, but it cannot be our rule of faith or practice. A historical argument is a supportive argument, not a foundational argument. I understand that when it comes to the discussion of women serving as deacons, deaconesses, or assistants to the diaconate, there have been various views and interpretations.

However, the PCA’s constitutional standards are clear regarding the diaconal office and the manner in which non-ordained persons may assist the diaconate without assuming the authority or functions proper to the office itself. Whereas the historical view of church offices has been unclear and unscriptural. Whereas Chrysostom has an Episcopalian/Presbyterian hybrid view of church offices, he speaks regularly of bishops (including archbishops), presbyters, and deacons, while also mentioning classes such as monks, nuns, widows, virgins, and others. There are many offices in the Historical Church that are believed to be scriptural, which Presbyterians and the PCA deny because they are not taught in Scripture.

A recent article examined the numbers associated with the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records. As someone who appreciates careful use of data, I found the article both interesting and helpful. During my years serving as Assistant (to the) Secretary and now as Secretary of the Committee, I have sought to help CRPR transition to a more data-driven model for compiling and storing its reports, rather than relying solely on text-based formats. The scope of the Committee’s work is substantial. CRPR reviews minutes from hundreds of Presbytery meetings each year—amounting to thousands of pages—and exceptions of substance require formal responses to the General Assembly from the presbyteries involved.

The ByFaith article is useful in presenting the raw numbers, but numbers alone do not always convey the full story behind the report. This article is not intended as a critique of that piece, but as a companion, an attempt to provide additional context and explain how those numbers came to be and what they represent. What follows may feel like “inside baseball,” but for those seeking to understand CRPR’s work more fully, that context matters.

Common exceptions

When we hear about so many exceptions, it can seem overwhelming. It is particularly for the secretaries who must enter and track the responses in the report. Nevertheless, I would argue that most of these exceptions are important and serious enough to warrant a response, even if they do not rise to the level of egregiousness. Many responses from Presbyteries indicate they agree, with the exception. The exceptions have not been falsely cited, although a court can and does err (WCF 31.3).

Many of the substance-related exceptions referred by the General Assembly involve what appear to be minor recording deficiencies, but these deficiencies often have serious ramifications. Whether a man is qualified to serve as a teaching elder, and whether he has undergone the required trials and examinations, is not a minor matter. These questions go to the care of Christ’s church and the shepherding of souls.

About 2/3 (66.4%) of the exceptions can fall into six categories; call-related exceptions (14.9%), examinations (13.9%), Minutes and order such as notice for called meetings or commission minutes not entered (10.9%), Annual reports not included (10.6%), Transfer related exceptions (8.3%), and candidate (no session endorsement, or 6-month membership) (7.8%). Many of these are often that Presbytery did not include the correct items in their minutes. What may seem small is important: the proper recording of a man’s preparation and trials for ordination, alongside the congregation’s right to elect those who have authority over them (PP 6). Many of these are automatically required to be cited as exceptions of substance because they fall under (RAO 16-3.5-7)

Committee Members Change

Every year, the CRPR has new members; there is consistency, but it is not the same group. One member can make a strong case for changing a prior practice. Previously, an item might have been labeled as an exception of form (sent to presbyteries but not required to respond to the General Assembly). One example from my time on the committee is the handling of exceptions for candidates coming under care. This is the first step in the process of becoming an ordained teaching elder in the PCA, which is about a man’s competency, but more importantly, his character, as evidenced by his six-month membership and the session’s endorsement. This exception accounted for about 7.8% of the General Assembly's 2025 exceptions. While this does not make up for the drastic increase, the CRPR and, eventually, the General Assembly determine what constitutes a substantive exception. CRPR only recommends exceptions, and GA votes on them. One thing I know for sure while serving on CRPR is that every committee is consistently inconsistent, year to year and within the same report.

The General Assembly and the Committee changes its process

Not only does the committee change yearly. CRPR has changed drastically over the course of the PCA. In 1974, the CRPR report was only 4 pages long. As the denomination grows and changes, so do the practices. In 1988, CRPR requested that the denomination provide a computer and a computer operator1 to help produce the report; the ground they provided was “the enormous amount of material which must be processed by this Committee.”2 They continue to request this assistance, and in 1995, they requested a computer and an overhead.3 (This is hard to imagine when everyone carries a supercomputer in their pockets today). The following year, the committee provided an operations manual for information, stating that the report should be “typed original by Assembly stenographers.”4 CRPR has come a long way from 1973.

Frequently, CRPR recommends changes to the RAO, which, in turn, affect how the committee operates. Since 2000, the General Assembly has amended Chapter 16 (The chapter dealing with CRPR) of the RAO 11 times. Some of these changes seem minuscule, but others materially affect what constitutes an exception of substance. Two examples where GA has voted to change the RAO and, in effect, has changed how CRPR operates. Either the change to the status of TEs, which provides CRPR with the information needed to recommend exceptions relating to annual reports (10.6%), or the change to the definition of an exception (RAO 16-6.c.1), requires items to be listed as exceptions of substance (potentially 28% or more).

Internally, a change was made to allow for digital minutes to be submitted. Then, in the following year (I believe), the Committee changed how it handled minutes. Each Presbytery would be assigned to a Read Team, along with three other Presbyteries. Three members review the minutes of about 4 presbyteries; this has become easier through the Presbytery submitting digital records. In 2025, 72 Presbyteries submitted their records digitally. And on average, digital records receive 6.3 exceptions per Presbytery, whereas Presbyteries who send in print records receive 2.6 exceptions per presbytery. The distinction, I believe, is that those who send in print records are more experienced clerks. CRPR’s change might have increased its effectiveness and efficiency in reviewing minutes, compared with producing the report from printed minutes at the General Assembly. I personally believe the total number of apparent violations did not increase; rather, the committee became more effective at identifying them with the read team model.

The Report Changes

One practical factor that may have increased the number of exceptions is that, in recent years, the CRPR report has been generated by an automated system with limited capabilities. For those interested, read Teams submit a Microsoft Word Document with Form Fields that is then expanded into a spreadsheet (through a code that was written by a Ruling Elder who served on the Committee), and then, through many formulas and data queries, is sent to a mail merge, with several macros to format the report. Having data in this format is helpful, but it increases the need for members to remember specific items and makes follow-up more effective. The old member memory method was difficult when you have an annual meeting, and members do not regularly receive the same presbytery records for review. We can also provide data to evaluate and help clerks and presbyteries identify common exceptions, minimizing future exceptions. However, our current system has a single exception on one line, e.g., Date – Exception. However, in previous years, the secretaries would combine multiple exceptions into a single line: Date 1, Date 2, Date 3 – Exception. This would affect the number of exceptions counted, but not the number of exceptions given with the older system.

The Denomination Changes

The denomination has seen increases in many areas; while not all are as high as the CRPR report (241%), these increases suggest a healthy denomination carrying out its duties. For example, from 2000-2019, the average number of commissioners at GA was about 1,356 (1,081 was the lowest in 2009, and 1,652 was the highest in 2019). However, since 2021, the average has been 2,228 (the lowest 2,113 in 2024 and the highest 2,385 in 2022), up 64%. There has also been an increase in BCO changes. Between 2000 and 2019, the BCO was amended an average of 2.9 times per year, but in 2021-2025 it was amended 5.2 times per year (an increase of 79%). Between 2000 and 2019, 356 RE attended GA (Lowest 256 in 2014, highest 531 in 2005). Since 2021, GA has averaged 678 RE (lowest 615 in 2021, highest 751 in 2022), up 90%. Along with an increase in SJC cases (22 between 2000-2019 and 37 between 2021-2025), a 69% increase.5 These numbers may indicate a larger story: a denomination growing with some pains, or presbyters seeking to use the proper channels to operate in a healthy manner. Personally, I believe this highlights tensions within our denomination. The CRPR report is long (I know), but its length may be due to the denomination’s current story.

Conclusion

Data never lies; it is often one note of a stave surrounded by other notes. One of the blessings of the Presbyterian form of government is the existence of both higher and lower courts. One of the responsibilities of higher courts is to review lower courts’ records.

I have served on the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records since 2021. Each year, I am privileged to see men who voluntarily give significant time and effort to carry out this important work for the denomination, men who read hundreds of pages of minutes, prepare reports, travel to Atlanta, and then spend long hours in careful discussion and debate, all with the aim of serving Christ and His church. That report is sent to the Assembly, and the General Assembly votes on it. In recent years, commissioners have raised objections, but the Assembly has generally voted to refer the exceptions of substance to the Presbytery for a response, in agreement with the Committee's recommendation. An increase in the number of exceptions should not be read as evidence of overreach or control. Rather, it reflects the ordinary and necessary accountability that presbyteries have to the General Assembly within our connectional system.

Many people are commenting on the overtures that are coming before the 53^rd GA, mainly ones relating to the diaconate. As of today, 41 overtures have been submitted from Presbyteries; one Presbytery submitted 16 (cough cough). However, several are frequently discussed and will continue to be discussed. Regarding overtures seeking to allow women to serve as deacons or deaconesses, or to open new avenues for women to serve the church. I thought it would be useful to have an article that examines when this issue has arisen in the PCA.

The preliminary factor that makes this difficult is that, when examining minutes or the history of a Presbyterian church, it is easy to see what the Denomination did: they voted on a particular motion or recommendation , and it passed or failed. The difficulty lies in the fact that we do not always have the exact vote counts, and, more importantly, we do not know why it passed or failed. I will limit this article to examining what was passed and what was not passed by the Assembly, and to numerical data, while avoiding speculation.

Overture 1984-28

I will start in 1984. I have written about the period preceding the formation of the PCA.

It is 1984, and many current pastors in the PCA were not in school, and some had not yet been knit together by the Lord yet. The Denomination is not old enough to drive. At the Twelfth General Assembly, Delmarva Presbytery, which is now Heritage (1990) sent overture 28 titled, “Study the particular question of women in the diaconate.” This was sent to the Bills and Overtures Committee. The overture is small and simple, with three Whereas statements and one therefore, “we the Delmarva Presbytery do overture the Twelfth General Assembly of the PCA to study the particular question of women in the diaconate.”1 The 12^th General Assembly voted in the negative with a simple reply, “Refer to I Timothy 3:8, 12; Acts 6:3, and BCO 9-3, 7.”2 Thirty men requested that their negative vote be recorded. At the GA, 945 Commissioners were present.3

Rabbit Trail

One factor that initiated this discussion was an event in 1983 in which a candidate was denied ordination for his views, including those regarding BCO 7-2 and 9-3, i.e., the ordination of women as deacons. This case could be a topic for discussion and researching minutes. This covers over multiple years, multiple commissions, and complaints. Procedural disparities, e.g., GA annulling sustaining an examination but not annulling the Presbytery’s ordination. Review of the Presbytery Records was involved through an exception. Multiple challenges to the moderators, with extremely close votes.

Here is what I believe I can piece together from the minutes, but I am still not certain this is the full extent. It began at the 11^th GA, with Case 2, a complaint brought to GA by a ruling elder.4 Ultimately, the General Assembly annuls the candidate’s examination. Then, in 1984, the matter was raised as a reference (Reference 1), which was not addressed by the Assembly but was forwarded to the 13^th GA.5 The 12th General Assembly sustained a charge of non-compliance with the 11^th Assembly’s directives but rejected charges of constitutional violation and contumacy, directing the Presbytery to re-examine the candidate. The General Assembly also clarified one of the factors, stating, “The position that one believes that it is Biblically valid to ordain women as deacons, but who agrees to abide by the position of the BCO 7-26 and 9-37 is not sufficient reason by itself to deny ordination or reception in the PCA.”8

The handling of this matter resulted in Tennessee Valley’s overture 10 to the General Assembly9. The request in the overture was denied.10 The reference was sent to the Committee on Judicial Business (CJB). The CJB advised the Stated Clerk, “only the General Assembly has jurisdiction and therefore the Assembly will have to rule on this issue.” It then came before the Assembly in 1985, with case 6.11 The General Assembly initially voted 205–192 to receive, approve, and accept the Judicial Commission’s report and judgment, but after adopting a motion to reconsider, it reversed course by a 204–158 vote to reject the report and appointed a new commission to adjudicate the case and report to the next Assembly.12 In 1987, the complaint was largely denied.13 The report has multiple layers and is complex due to actions across multiple years by the General Assembly and the Presbytery, as well as what appears to be a change in the candidate’s views.

What I believed would be a review of overtures led to a rabbit trail regarding this issue. Ordaining women as deacons was one small factor in this case that appears to have been resolved by the 12th GA's statement. The candidate was ordained and remained in the PCA until his retirement and passing unto Glory in 2019.

1991-40

Now, the PCA is 18 and would be legally eligible to vote. An overture is presented to the 19^th General Assembly titled, “Declare ordination of deaconesses to be in violation of BCO.” The overture comes from a teaching elder not a Presbytery. The overture was presented to the Presbytery, Northeast Presbytery (which was divided in 2000 into three Presbyteries, Northern New England, Southern New England, and New York State). The Presbytery took no action and submitted it to the General Assembly. General Assembly took no action (RAO 10-10) with the grounds, “Northeast Presbytery has not had ample opportunity to consider this overture and has not yet acted.”14 From what I can find, no follow-up overture was sent in subsequent years.

2008-09

Now, the PCA is 35, the point in life when you begin to experience the early signs of aging. No longer in your prime, close to the top of the hill, and starting to descend. Overture 9, which was titled, “Erect a Study Committee on Deaconesses,” came before the Assembly. Originating from Philadelphia Presbytery. The motion before the assembly was to answer Overture 9 in the negative, with a minority report presented. A point of order was raised, and the Moderator ruled it was not well taken. The Assembly voted to sustain the chair, 518–369. The debate was closed with a vote of 420-467. The minority report was defeated and the main motion to erect a study committee was defeated the recommendation was approved, “That Overture 9 (“Erect Study Committee on Deaconesses”) be answered in the negative, and that presbyteries are reminded that appropriate ways to bring these issues before the Assembly are through presbytery overtures to amend the BCO, or by way of reference (BCO 41).” The following grounds were provided: “BCO 7-2, chapter 9, and especially 9-7, provide a sufficient answer to the issues contemplated in Overture 9; the presbyteries should work through the implications in their own local contexts. This is always subject to the actions noted in the text of the response.”15

Three other overtures were sent from three Presbyteries: Overture 15 from Western Canada (Now Canada West); Overture 17 from Rocky Mountain Presbytery; and Overture 19 from Central Georgia.16 A Communication was sent from Northern California Presbytery in concurrence with Overture 9.17

2010-07

A few years later, in 2010, PCA is now 37; it is closer to 40 than 30. Overture 7 came from Evangel Presbytery, titled “Amend BCO 9-7 to specify that persons who assist deacons may not be ordained.” Overture 7 was adopted as amended, which is the current version of BCO 9-7.

The opening sentences of the grounds provided were as followed “There was general consensus on the Overtures committee that we are committed to two ordained offices, elder and deacon, to be held by men only. There was much discussion, however, regarding different models and terminology for women’s ministry occurring alongside the deacons in accord with BCO 9-7.”18

Four other presbyteries submitted overtures that year concerning this matter, Overture 2 from Central Carolina Presbytery, “Amend BCO 9-7 to Prohibit Deaconesses”; Overture 9 from Eastern Carolina Presbytery, “Revise BCO 9-7 to Prohibit Assistants to the Deacons from Being Commissioned or Installed as Office Bearers”; Overture 13 from Westminster Presbytery, “Assistants to the Deacons not to be Elected, Ordained, or Installed as if they were Office Bearers;” and Overture 16 from the Presbytery of Tennessee Valley, “Affirm Unordained Deaconesses.”19

2016-AIC

In 2016, the PCA was 43 years old, and the children were entering new life stages. The Administrative Committee recommends the formation of an Ad Interim Study Committee to examine the role of women in the church (Recommendation 3). A point of order was raised, and the moderator ruled that it was not well taken. A vote was put before the Assembly. The Assembly sustained the chair, 582-466-36. 173 elder commissioners registered their agreement with the point of order and disagreement with the Moderator’s ruling. 126 TEs, 46 REs, and one unknown; of these men were from 54 presbyteries.20 A substitute was presented by the AC CoC, which was defeated (447-699-8). Recommendation 3 was adopted (767-375-12).

2017-AIC

The following year, 2017, the AIC presented its report. A point of order was raised because the AIC had no Ruling elders on the committee; the point of order was not well taken and was put to a vote. The Assembly sustained the moderator (781-299).21 Other points of order were raised, recommendation 1 was taken up, which was Overture 3 from Westminster Presbytery, which was titled, “Declare that the 44th General Assembly Erred in the Formation of an Ad Interim Committee on Women, that the General Assembly not Receive the Report of the Ad Interim Committee on the Role of Women as not Being Properly before the Court, and Dismiss the Ad Interim Committee with Apology.” Recommendation 1 was to answer Overture 3 negatively, which passed (941-307). The minutes then record many substantive motions, points of order, challenges of the chair, and calls to question. Recommendations passed as followed 2 (880-349-12); 3 (908-279-6); 4 was amended (908-279-6) and then adopted (939-140-18); 5 failed a substitute (391-796-8), was adopted (830-362-11); 6 was amended and passed (838-289-32); 7 was adopted (649-501-6); 8 was adopted (966-119-15); and 9 was adopted (1056-38-17).22

2018-09

The PCA is now 45 years old, with teenagers in the house and some off at college. Grace Presbytery sends Overture 9, “Amend BCO 9-7 regarding assistants to deacons or deaconesses and amend BCO 24-11 by adding new 24-11 regarding women officers.” Which was recommended by the overtures committee to be answered in the negative with a vote of 104-4-3.23 The Assembly adopted the committee’s recommendation.24 The full text of the overture appears in the minutes,25 but the summary is that the congregation may not require vows or promises from deaconesses or deacon assistants comparable to those made by ordained deacons.

2019-29

In 2019, Metropolitan New York Presbytery sent up overture 29, which was titled, “Amend BCO 5-9.c, 5-9.i(1), 7-2, 9-3, 17-3, 24, and Add a Chapter 25 In Order to Allow Local Sessions to Decide Whether Women Are Allowed to Serve as Deacons.” This overture was later withdrawn from the Presbytery.26

2023-26

In 2023, the PCA marks its 50th anniversary. Overture 26 from Northwest Georgia titled, “Amend BCO 7-3 Regarding Titling of Unordained People” is sent to the General Assembly. The Overture Committee amended the overture and sent it to the General Assembly, recommending approval by a vote of 91-44-1.27 The General Assembly approved the recommendation 1427-481-20.28 The recommendation being approved it was given the item number 1, and was passed by presbyteries, 65-14.29 At the 51^st General Assembly, the amendment to BCO 7-3 was ratified via standing vote, due to technological difficulties there is no counted vote.30 116 members requested that their negative votes be recorded: 96 TEs and 20 REs, representing 50 presbyteries.

2026

This year 41 overtures have been sent up from Presbyteries, to date five are related to the topic above, Overture 14 from Southwest Florida Presbytery titled, “Amend BCO 7-3, 7-4, 9-2, and 9-7 to Regarding Titles and Offices for Unordained People;” Overture 34 from Savanah River Presbytery titled, “Amend BCO 9-2 Regarding the Expectation of the Establishment of a Diaconate;” Overture 36 from Catawba Valley Presbytery titled, “Add BCO 8-11 and 9-8 Regarding the Exercise of the Duties and Authority of Elder 2 and Deacon;” Overture 37 from Pacific Presbytery titled, “Amend BCO 9-3 to Allow Women to Serve as Ordained Deacons;” and Overture 38 from Metro Atlanta Presbytery titled, “Amend BCO 7-3 and add 9-8 to Allow Sessions Flexibility Regarding the Diaconate.” From what I have heard from the grapevine (I am sure that is not what Jesus meant), more overtures will be coming concerning this discussion.

Conclusion

Given the large number of overtures, this will be a very difficult General Assembly; more importantly, some will require substantial discussion and, I am sure, one or more minority reports. I began by seeking to remain factual, but here I might include some personal commentary that I believe is accurate. The PCA has a complicated yet clear history with this topic. The PCA has consistently and clearly stated that only godly, qualified men are eligible for ordination in the Presbyterian Church in America. However, it has been considerably more complex along the way, given the denomination’s various practices. I have written on this before and appeal to my Brothers to stop using the title of deaconess. However, what is clear from reading the minutes is that whenever this issue comes up, it is very much like Acts 15:6, where there is ‘much debate,’ points of order are raised, the chair/moderator is sustained or challenged, technology fails, votes are close and then reconsidered and the outcome changed, and even in the black and white of the text of the minutes, you can see passionate people. This year’s General Assembly will be difficult, but often in life, you need to have difficult conversations with the people you love. You need to talk about hard things with them, with love and respect for one another. I am sure Paul and Barnabas had a difficult conversation about what to do with John Mark (Acts 15:36–39).

For this work to be carried forward in an orderly and faithful manner, the PCA must be represented at the next General Assembly and in those that follow. This representation properly comes through ordained Teaching and Ruling Elders, who attend not as individuals but as commissioners representing their local churches.

If you are unable to vote because you are not an ordained Teaching or Ruling Elder, I encourage you to speak with the elders of your own congregation; pray for them, support them, and urge them to serve where the Church has called them, in the courts. Above all, let us pray for one another and for our denomination, that we would conduct our work with charity and patience, showing kindness and compassion toward one another, and remaining steadfastly faithful to the Word of God and to Christ, the only Head and King of the Church.

I would like to conclude with a great encouragement: Christ ascended on high and rules and reigns supreme. Christ appointed officers for this task to oversee his church, as under shepherds caring for souls. God’s word goes forth from teaching elders behind pulpits every Lord’s Day, and the Spirit continues to move and change hearts. Throughout the book of Acts, the early church faced many problems, some from external sources and persecution, and others from internal growth. Yet the constant refrain is that the word of God continued to increase (Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20). We see Christ’s church grow, even with external persecution and internal tensions. We see the promise that Christ said, He is the one who builds his church (Matt 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 3:6–7).

In debates about deaconesses, we often reach for authoritative voices, and few are more respected than B. B. Warfield. Warfield published an article, ‘Presbyterian Deaconesses,’ in 1889 that briefly outlined his position on the matter. However, many arguments appealing to Warfield take the following simplistic form: “Person X held this view; therefore, my view must be correct.” This is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), or more informally, guilt or innocence by association. If we are to speak faithfully and charitably about Warfield, we must avoid invoking his name merely as a proof-text for our own conclusions. Instead, we should carefully read what Warfield actually said, in its historical and theological context, and evaluate it based on Scripture and the standards of the church.

Warfield argues that he believes the primitive office of deaconess should be resurrected. When he uses the title deaconess, he clearly understands its limitations. Warfield is extremely honest, stating his position, “For it need not be denied that the office of deaconess is a Scriptural office, although it must be confessed that the Biblical warrant for it is of the slenderest.” He continues, “This is no doubt a narrow, not to say a precarious foundation on which to build much of an ecclesiastical structure.”

Warfield continues to examine the historical practice throughout the early church, citing Pliny’s letter to Trajan.

Warfield references Ignatius and his use of the offices of ‘virgin’ and ‘widows’ (107 AD). Warfield takes a different approach to Calvin , who believes Phoebe (Rom 16:1) serves in the office of ‘Widow.’

Warfield states there are two distinct classes — one of service and another of honor — saying,

“It is clear, however, that ‘deaconesses’ and ‘widows’ were different classes. And although this settled usage of the words in technical senses, at the opening of the second century, surely implies that the classes which they designate were of apostolic age, yet it is a different matter how far we are justified in assuming that these offices existed as offices in the apostolic age.”

Warfield points out that the Western Church ‘deaconess’ moves to the shadows, while the office of ‘widow’ is spoken of in the early church fathers (Ignatius, Lucian, Polycarp, Hermas, and the Clementine Homilies). Warfield expounds,

“We should say that the office of deaconess was wholly overshadowed, if not rooted out, by that of the ‘widows,’ throughout the whole second century, and was not so much revived as recreated by the Greek Church of the third century.”

In the third century, the three classes of offices for women were found in the Apostolic Constitution: ‘virgins, deaconesses, and widows.’ The Apostolic Constitution makes it clear that women are not to teach, citing 1 Corinthians 14:34. We start to see more official categories created during this period: readers, ministers, porters, and singers. Warfield says that, from the fourth century onward, the three offices were conflated and forgotten due to the prohibition on ordination. Although the practice of deaconesses is difficult to trace through history, the consensus is that deaconesses were not to be ordained (see Canon 19, Nicaea 325).

Warfield does not argue to reinstate the historic practice of deaconesses but seeks to argue for what he calls the primitive office of deaconess. For Warfield, the sole scriptural reference to the office of Deaconess is found in Romans 16:1. Warfield, driven by Scripture, comes to this conclusion: Romans 16:1 speaks of the office of deaconess and no other. Warfield explains,

“We are left only to the meagre inferences that as Phebe was ‘a deaconess of the church that is at Cenchreae,’ the office was a local one and inhered in the individual congregation.”

Warfield also points to Pliny’s letter, expressing that because Pliny tortured two women, we can see a plurality of deacons.

Warfield, throughout his article, presents the limited evidence from Scripture for this office of ‘deaconess.’ Throughout his article, he uses these words describing the evidence: ‘slender,’ ‘narrow,’ ‘meagre inference,’ or a ‘precarious foundation.’ Warfield even calls many additional sources ‘theories’ besides the little scriptural evidence. Warfield actually articulates one of the main concerns of the lack of Scriptural foundation of the office of ‘deaconess,’ stating,

“We have no Biblical account of the qualifications for the office or its duties, and no very early account of the functions it actually exercised.”

I appreciate Warfield’s candor and honesty, the simplicity of his argument, and the honesty that Romans 16:1 is the only scriptural support he has for the office. Warfield does not let his interpretation of this passage force the understanding of other verses. He speaks with clarity about his conviction that the Bible teaches the office of ‘deaconess’ without adding to Scripture. We can agree or disagree with Warfield and his reasoning, but we should all be able to agree that Warfield is a man of conviction and lets the Scripture speak for itself.

Sadly, I wish that Warfield had interacted with the other potential interpretation of Romans 16:1. He expresses that there are different interpretations of what Paul calls Phoebe in Romans 16:1. He explains,

“The term here employed (diakonoi) is of very broad connotation; and Pheobe might conceivably have been only an humble ‘servant’ of the Cenchrean church, or indeed, for all that the term itself declares, only a Christian belonging to that church (cf. John xii. 26).”

He continues to express why he believes Paul is referring to Phoebe as a ‘deaconess,’

“Nevertheless this seems the more likely meaning of the phrase; and this interpretation receives confirmation from a clear indication, coming to us from the earliest post-apostolic times, that ‘deaconesses’ were then already an established order in the church.”

His reasoning is grounded in post-apostolic writings, as cited in Pliny’s letter. To me, this is not a strong argument, given that we can use Scripture to interpret Scripture and see Paul referring to Phoebe as a servant, not a ‘deaconess.’

Warfield, convinced that Phoebe is a deaconess and that the church should therefore establish the primitive office of deaconess, suggests a variety of practices (McGill and Fliedner). Even the Church of England and the Church in Scotland are examples he points to. Warfield looks to these many examples of how the church should structure this office with the interactions with the broader church. Warfield suggests the possibility of having graded courts similar to presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, under the oversight of presbyters. One of the interesting aspects of Warfield’s articles is the example he gives in American Presbyterianism, namely the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUS), which is the PCA is the continuing church of. Warfield points to what becomes BCO 9–7,

“Perhaps the nearest approach to the more formal and ecclesiastical revival of the office among us, in its proper Scriptural sense, has been made by the Southern Presbyterian Church, which sets forth in its Book of Church Order, adopted in 1879, that ‘where it shall appear needful, the Church Session may select and appoint godly women for the care of the sick, of prisoners, of poor widows and orphans, and in general for the relief of distress.’ Here we have the essential features of the office.”

Warfield finishes highlighting the women’s ministry that was already occurring in the church at the end of the 19th century. Warfield is once more honest about the situation and does not then say this should be thrust upon the church without prudence. He concludes that independent women’s ministry organizations, if left outside church oversight, could eventually weaken the church’s structure. The church must wisely integrate women’s work into its official system under biblical authority and Presbyterian governance. Warfield believed reform was needed, but must be done carefully, with patience and fidelity to Scripture.

Conclusion
Warfield is one of my heroes. I love his work on the Westminster Assembly, and he has a great beard and an excellent middle name, “Breckinridge.” I sincerely appreciate his honesty throughout this piece. I would have loved to see him wrestle more deeply with several of his claims and to examine more fully how he arrived at his conclusions. The issue was a significant point of debate in his own time, and he was writing amid that tension.

I believe the BCO is correct in saying that the ordained offices in the church are open only to godly, qualified men. Yet Warfield raises significant concerns that must be addressed, even by those convinced of the office of deaconess. For example: if Christ has revealed the office of Deaconess, why are we given no qualifications for it, and what functions was it intended to serve? When some people today cite Warfield in support of their position (some female deacons), I am not convinced they have thoroughly read his arguments. Warfield does not discuss ordination and openly works from a “slender” and “precarious” biblical foundation, attempting to infer the missing qualifications and duties. He acknowledges the lack of Scriptural clarity yet does not seriously engage the straightforward interpretation that Paul calls Phoebe a servant.

Warfield deserves our respect, but he cannot simply be used as a decisive citation meant to settle the debate by name alone. If Warfield is the strongest historical support for the argument, then the argument itself still rests on what he calls a narrow and precarious foundation. To appeal to Warfield is not to settle the issue; it is to admit that the biblical evidence remains thin, debated, and far from conclusive. If we are going to build ecclesiology, we must build it on Scripture, not on names, however great they may be.

Polity

Historical

A Brotherly Plea

These articles unpack this article in which I make seven arguments to my brothers in the PCA to stop using the term “Non-Ordained Commissioned Deaconesses.”

Personal Reflections

What does the letter of a Roman Official have to do with Church government today?

That is a great question, I am glad you asked.

The Letter I am referring to is Pliny’s letter to Trajan. First, who is Pliny, and why are his letters famous? Pliny the Younger, not to be confused with Pliny the Elder (his uncle). Given the name Pliny, it must be a family name. Pliny the Younger served as governor of Pontus/Bithynia (modern-day Turkey, near the Black Sea). He served from 111 to 113 AD. We have his letters to Emperor Trajan. These are well-known scholarly resources because they are among the earliest non-Christian references to Christianity. At the same time, scholarly debates discuss the validity of the letters.[1] That is not what we need to wrestle with today. For the purposes of this article, we will assume the letters date to around 111 AD.

Contents of the Letter

Pliny writes this letter (Letter 96) to Emperor Trajan, seeking his counsel and advice on the accusations he received about Christians in his region. In the opening, he explains that he has not previously interacted with Christians, so he was unsure about their common offences or how to investigate them. He interrogated Christians and executed them if they continued to confess Christ. If they did not claim to be Christians, he could test them by getting them to worship Roman gods, or offer incense to the emperor’s image, or even curse Christ. Yet true Christians would not engage in these practices. He notes that some individuals were Christians but had abandoned the faith; they nevertheless performed the tests he requested.

He explained their practice of meeting before dawn on a particular day and singing to Christ, committing to flee from sin (immoral behavior), and sharing an ordinary meal. His letter is to seek whether he is handling the matter correctly. He notes that persecution is leading to a resurgence of traditional Roman religion, as temples are once again active and sacrifices are increasing. He believes many Christians could be “reformed” if given the chance to repent. Trajan responds, agreeing that Christians are not to be actively sought out, but if they are formally accused and found guilty, they must be punished.

Why is this letter important to the Deacon/Deaconess discussion?

The letter is often referred to because of a particular sentence, “Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called [deaconesses].” Pliny, in his investigation, captures two female slaves and tortures them. Pliny explains that these two women are referred to as “ministrae.” People often translate this as deaconess. Now, the translation can be a concern; it is more likely that Pliny would use “ministrae” to mean female servants or female assistants. This would have been a common term for Pliny to use for temple assistants or servants. It is also possible that this is how the women introduced themselves, as servants of Christ, a common term (1 Pet 2:16; 2 Cor 6:4; 3:6).

However, the greater issue with using this letter to defend women for the office of Deacon or Deaconess is that we are placing a significant amount of weight on a letter written by a person who had never joined, participated in, or attended a church, having only met Christians for the first time. Pliny would not pass any membership or ordination examination. What if, hundreds of years from today, people shaped their view of church government from a letter from a governor writing to a president who knew nothing about Christianity, but from interrogation and torture? To put weight on this one term, which is indecisive at best, is to be shaped by an unbeliever and outsider rather than by Scripture.

Greater Concern

However, my concern is that we rely on Church tradition and history to structure the church of Christ. Turning to a Roman Governor, compared to the true king and head who governs his church, Jesus Christ. Turning to Church History, can be a return to the Roman Catholic model of human traditions, rather than the prescription of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says,

“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence, we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

History should not be used to defend Scripture; instead, Scripture interprets and governs history. Or as the Confession says, Church History is to be examined and determined by the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Church history, especially in matters of church government and worship, encompasses a wide range of practices and writings, sufficient to support almost any position if one seeks it out. You can find arguments for immersion, sprinkling, or pouring by appealing selectively to history. Therefore, church history must serve as a supplement and confirmation, not as the foundation for determining what is correct. Its value is in showing how the Church has traditionally understood Scripture, not in establishing doctrine or office on its own authority. This is why Calvin frequently cited the early Fathers, not because they were the final word, but because their testimony agreed with Scripture. As the Westminster Confession reminds us, ‘The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion… can only be the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.’ One letter from a pagan governor, using an ambiguous term and describing a faith he barely understood, cannot outweigh the clear form of government Christ has revealed in His Word.

[1] https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-abstract/32/2/435/2669642

If the Reformed community were a playground, one of the most common arguments you’d hear would be “John Calvin did it.” What is implied by this argument is that if John Calvin, or any famous Reformed person, held a particular position, then it is allowable in the PCA today. There are several issues with the line of reasoning, which could be the subject of another article. The weakness is that they often explain that the circumstances, categories, and context match our own, and therefore, we are in complete agreement.

This reasoning is often less about what Calvin taught and more about what we want him to have taught. The argument is usually used in a way that suggests I hold to the particular Reformed person’s position; however, it is more frequently the case that the Reformed person holds my position. Or another way of saying, “If John Calvin were in this debate, he would wholeheartedly agree with what I am saying.”

Too often, people’s historical studies are done through a search function. Historical studies require a significant amount of reading and comprehension. Ultimately, not to argue this person supports my position, but rather, how would this person articulate their position in their own words? One of the main issues I observe today is the lack of historical context and thorough study surrounding particular issues, often relying on selective quotes to articulate a specific position rather than allowing people to speak for themselves. Sometimes people hear an argument made by another and do not check the primary sources. Some use a select sliver of quotes to support their position — using the person to prop up their argument rather than letting the person speak for themselves.

The argument that “If this historical figure were alive today, they would agree with our position” has many problems. Chief among them is that these figures lived in different times and cultures. To be a good historian, one must understand the context in which someone wrote. Take, for example, the question of Calvin’s position between infralapsarian and supralapsarian views of the fall. The first step is to recognize that Calvin never wrote directly on this subject, since that particular theological debate did not arise until nearly a century after his time. This does not mean he had nothing relevant to say, nor that historians cannot turn to Calvin for study. This is where PhDs are made, in the nuanced and technical study of specific topics. We must first seek to understand his theology within his own time before asking how his principles might address the issue today. So we must understand the times to understand their position. Sadly, I believe many do not read to understand Calvin’s position and see if they agree with him, or if he would agree with them.

Calvin and Deaconess

One of the issues we encounter when reading Calvin is that we are not reading his writings in the original French or Latin, as he wrote them. Thus, we are reading translations of his works and selecting words without the context of the arguments he is making. Everybody says Calvin had deaconesses, but no one I have read holds to Calvin’s view of deaconesses — even those who cite him to support their position.

Often, people point out Calvin’s class view of deacons,

“As it is certain that [Paul in Romans] is here speaking of public offices of the Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:10). For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this (and it certainly ought to be admitted), there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves.”[1]

Calvin’s view is not that 1 Timothy 3:8–12 speaks of two classes of deacons, but that you see the office of Deacon and a second of service, which he points to the Widows in 1 Timothy chapter 5 (With specific qualifications). One is ordained; the other is a ministry (particularly caring for the poor and the sick).

Later in the Institutes, Calvin writes,

“For deaconesses were appointed, not to soothe God by chantings or unintelligible murmurs, and spend the rest of their time in idleness; but to perform a public ministry of the Church toward the poor, and to labour with all zeal, assiduity, and diligence, in offices of charity.”[2]

Within this context, Calvin is referring to the Roman Catholic perversion of Scripture, specifically the order of Nuns, which the Roman Catholic Church cites in 1 Timothy 5. Calvin is answering the question, “But what ground can there be for applying this passage to nuns?”[3] This passage he refers to is 1 Timothy 5 from the above section.

Calvin uses the term “deaconesses” when discussing the errors of monastic vows of celibacy. This is the only time the Latin phrase ‘diaconissæ’ is used (that I am aware of); there are many sources that could offer more to help understand Calvin’s position, such as consistory records. I do believe you can make an argument that Calvin is using the term as a synonym for what he generally calls ‘widows.’ The second class of deacon who serves the poor. This is why I think “Calvin had deaconesses” needs clarification, because people often interpret words in particular ways. Calvin had a non-ordained view of Widows (with specific qualifications), which he once referred to as deaconesses, a more historically accurate term to represent his perspective.

However, we need to delve further to understand Calvin’s view more fully. To this point, people read the above quotes and then argue that the church should have female deacons or that we should ordain deaconesses. Some might have more historical knowledge and know that Calvin did not believe women should be ordained; therefore, they argue, let’s commission women to serve as deaconesses. But we need to dig deeper. Having considered Calvin’s view of widows in 1 Timothy 5, it’s essential to examine how he treats Phoebe in Romans 16.

Calvin and Pheobe

Calvin translates Romans 16:1 in Latin,

“Commendo autem vobis Phœben sororem nostram, quæ est ministra ecclesiæ Cenchreensis;”[4]

His French translation (pictured above) is very similar: “laquelle est servante de l’Eglise,” which translates to “servant of the church.” What is interesting here is that he does not use the Latin, ‘diaconissæ’ or the French ‘diaconnesse.’ Calvin knew the Latin word existed because he used it, and yet did not use it when translating Romans 16:1. He uses the phrase ‘ministra.’ Now, some might want to explain that Calvin supported female ministers (What some might call ‘ministeresses’). However, this is a common argument: you take a word someone uses to support your argument, but it is not their position.

Some people might even translate this into English as ‘Deaconess.’ They continue to read Calvin, who explains, “He first commends to them Phoebe, to whom he gave this Epistle to be brought to them; and, in the first place, he commends her on account of her office.”[5] They might even read the footnote that the editor has, “ ‘Ministra,’ διάκονος — minister, or servant, or deaconess, one who ministers.”[6] They point and say, "See, Calvin believes Pheobe is a deaconess, or even that he says he has an office" (without the nuance of the above position). He didn’t call her that, but even if he did, what did he mean by this? This is where people depart from Calvin.

Calvin explains precisely what he means when he says that Pheobe had the title ‘ministrae.’ Calvin refers back to Paul’s teaching in 1 Tim 5:9, stating, “for as the poor were supported from the public treasury of the Church, so they were taken care of by those in public offices.” [7] He continues to explain that they were widows who had no domestic concerns and no children. They desired to serve the church through this religious duty and were bound to that task. They had to be over the age of 60, because it was dangerous for anyone younger to commit to being celibate, even “liable to prove ruinous.”[8] These are the qualifications to be a ministrae/widow/deaconess in Geneva when Calvin served. Then Calvin brings it back to the corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic church, which is connected to the “idle order of Nuns.”[9] Identical to his position in the Institutes. Clearly, Calvin sees these as all connected in the Institutes and in his commentaries on Romans and 1 Timothy.

Conclusion

Many appeal to John Calvin in support of ordaining women to the diaconate, but few continue reading what Calvin actually says. Beyond his theology, we must also remember the unique church–state context of Geneva. Calvin does use the term deaconess, but it refers to the widows mentioned in 1 Timothy 5. He is explicit that this is not an ordained office, applying the qualifications of 1 Timothy 5 rather than those of 1 Timothy 3.

Would John Calvin himself be ordainable in the PCA? That’s hard to say. Many Presbyteries would likely view his understanding of civil authority as striking at the vitals of our system, especially his approval of capital punishment for heresy. He would probably ace the theology exam, but raise serious concerns on the polity exam. Those who invoke Calvin to support their position to ordain women often find themselves disagreeing with him once (or if) they read him closely.

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997). Institutes IV, iii, 9

[2] Calvin, Institutes IV, xiii, 19

[3] Calvin, Institutes IV, xiii, 19

[4] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 541.

[5] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 542.

[6] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 542.

[7] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 543

[8] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 543.

[9] Calvin and Owen, ‘Romans,’ 543.

What type of system does an ordained man vow to adopt in their vows of ordination? The phrase has had many interpretations. It has become a key part of American Presbyterianism since the adopting act in 1729, which states,

“And do therefore agree, that all the Ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine; and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith.”

The Adopting Acts passed unanimously, yet what follows in the minutes in future years is questions of what the adopting act was, morning and afternoon sessions, or only the morning? What was the relationship between the Confession and the Presbyterian Church? Along with many questions of what the words meant when they adopted the adopting act. One man argued that being suspended from ministry for holding Arminian doctrines violated the adopting act.[1] This article is not a historical research project seeking to understand the term system; that would be a PhD dissertation. This article seeks to present various views of the word system of doctrine. Clearly, humans do not fit into five distinct categories, and the implications of these views might look different when applied across settings.

Christian System

The Westminster Standards are viewed as a broadly Christian summary of biblical teaching, capturing the essentials of orthodoxy rather than a tightly defined theological structure.

Another term for this category would be a creedal system. That seeks to see the standards as an explanation of ancient creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicaea-Constantinople Creed. Although I do not believe this view has been presented in our denomination, it has been the understanding of other denominations that might still have the Westminster Standards in their church documents. This view looks to the lowest common denominator, which seeks to stay true to historical faith, but also seeks to have some standard that sets them apart from another system.

Under this view, the Westminster Standards function more as a theological commentary on basic Christian orthodoxy than as a comprehensive doctrinal system with internal necessity.

Evangelical System

The Westminster Standards are read as an evangelical framework emphasizing gospel essentials (grace, faith, Scripture), with latitude on secondary or culturally sensitive doctrines.

This view would be a step up from the previous one stated. This might be more than an agreement with historical creeds, which are often shorter and more akin to brief articles of religion that are somewhat non-controversial. The example would be the ten statements of faith that you can find on many evangelical non-denominational church websites. These categories are one or two sentences that cover Scripture, God, Creation, Fall, Christ, Salvation, Incarnation, Resurrection, Church, and the Last Day. The beauty of such a statement is that many people would be able to agree on what is written down in the statement, but they do not go in depth. Again, I am not sure how many people in the PCA argue this position of the system, but I do believe this can become how we talk about what is important, and that other doctrines become secondary. I agree, however, what often can be said is that secondary is where division or disagreement come and therefore, you can still be ordained in the PCA.

While this approach rightly seeks peace and cooperation, it risks allowing contemporary evangelical priorities to determine what the confession may mean.

Calvinistic/Reformed System

The Westminster Standards articulate a distinctly Reformed system rooted in the doctrines of grace and covenant theology, with other doctrines flowing from those central commitments.

This view seeks to see the Standards as a Reformed document articulating the key Reformed teachings found in the five Solas and the five pillars of the Doctrines of Grace. Like the evangelical system, but with additional articles or statements added. You could say this is the evangelical system with an additional soteriological category. Like the evangelical view, the system becomes about a select few essential chapters. This view might even be able to be broken into two separate views, one that focuses on the Calvinistic System (Soteriology) and a broader system of the Reformed System, which might include (Worship, Sabbath).

In practice, this view often treats the confession as a soteriological core with ecclesiological and ethical appendices, rather than as a unified doctrinal architecture.

Organic System

The Westminster Standards present an integrated, organic system in which doctrines mutually inform and support one another, requiring careful attention to both explicit statements and necessary implications.

This view understands that the foundation of the Confession and Catechisms is not found merely in a single phrase or sentence; rather, the system of doctrine is interconnected because of the scriptural foundation for the Confession and Catechisms. One of the most used and quoted portions of our Confession is found in the Liberty of Conscience (Chapter 20). This is not a stand-alone chapter but is interictally connected to other portions of the Confession and Catechism. The chapter builds on other doctrines such as Scripture, God, Christ’s salvation, the moral law, the fall, death, resurrection, sanctification, faith, and others. Not to mention the impact this chapter has on religious worship, oaths and vows, and the limits of authority of the Church and Civil Magistrates.

Personally, this approach does not deny doctrinal hierarchy (Primary/Secondary) but insists that hierarchy must arise from the confession itself rather than from external theological instincts. The secondary doctrines are often implications of primary doctrines.

Rigid System

The Westminster Standards are treated as a fixed, exhaustive code, with minimal tolerance for exceptions regardless of their scope or implications.

This view sees the Standards as subordinate to Scripture but unbreakable. The rigid System might be used as a polemical argument, but I believe it is rarely believed in the PCA. Other denominations that hold to a stricter subscription to the Standards might hold this position.

This view often arises as a reaction to confessional erosion rather than as a primary theological conviction.

The system view all depends on what individuals believe is essential and necessary to the system of doctrine. The varying views can lead to different practices, some helpful and others less so. Each of these views then requires identifying the essential and necessary parts of each system, which would show the various views within each system.

Case Study: Recreation

I will seek to limit myself in this portion to not give a whole discourse on the Sabbath. However, I hope that I might help elders who have a candidate before them to ask good questions to understand the candidates’ views of the system of doctrine they are adopting, but also help see that not all cases are the same.

The “Recreation Clause” is a common difference stated by a candidate. However, not all stated differences are the same, which is why the candidate needs to present them in their own words. In the first two views Creedal/Christian and Evangelical these views anything other than the few article of faith is ‘adiaphora.’ The rigid view might allow as scruple on this point, but normally for semantic reasons.

Depending on how one views the Calvinistic or Reformed system, one’s vote in this instance might depend on how one might vote; the Calvinist system might say that recreation is peripheral to soteriology, and therefore does not affect the system. The Reformed system might see the view of the Sabbath as a key doctrine found in the Reformation documents, and therefore an exception may be granted in a few instances.

The organic view would seek to understand the man’s perspective more than just a single word, and to consider whether the view is a man articulating that what might be called a recreational activity is in fact an act of necessity or mercy. Or is the man not only stating a difference with the term recreation, but disagrees with the following statement, “the whole time [the Sabbath] is to be taken up, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.” If the whole day is not to be set apart for Public and Private worship (as understood by the Scriptures, summarized in the Confession and Catechism) or for works of necessity and mercy, then this starts to unravel the intricate parts of the Standards. The more extreme is that the man might hold that the fourth commandment is fulfilled in Christ, and therefore, there is no moral obligation to mankind today. Which not only looks to their view of the sabbath, worship, but also the moral law, Christ’s fulfillment of the law, and many other portions of the Standards.

The danger of some of the views of the system is that we often see the system as a small portion of the confession and catechisms; you can take a Sharpie and redact the confession down to the lowest common denominator. However, if the system is more organic, like an immune system or an operating system, even the smallest virus can have drastic effects.

Conclusion

This article is not exhaustive. I do believe this is an important question for elders to discuss and apply as candidates express their stated differences. Courts need to then ask probing questions of the candidate to understand their objection and disagreement. Some candidates need to articulate their position more precisely; others need to be told that their position undermines and therefore strikes at the vitals of religion and is hostile to the system.[2]

Ordination vows are promises made before God and His Church to uphold a system of doctrine. The difficulty facing the PCA is not a lack of good faith, but a lack of shared definition. Until presbyteries clarify what they mean by “system,” debates over exceptions will continue to speak past one another.

[1] Charles Hodge, The Church and Its Polity (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 329.

[2] Hostile to the system refers to a doctrinal position or stated difference that does not merely diverge from an isolated point within the Westminster Standards, but undermines or contradicts the internal coherence, theological logic, or necessary implications of the system of doctrine as a whole.