The authors of the Proposed Statement of Identity (PSI) do well, in this writer's opinion, to bring the discussion of church polity to the table. 1 There does seem to be a crisis of moral authority and leadership in the Presbyterian Church in America. Further, the PSJ makes an excellent observation when it says, "The structure and organization of a Reformed Church, by the church Is very nature, must have flexibility and adaptability built into its polity" [emphasis in original].2 It is this writer's opinion that a part of the genius of the Presbyterian system is the fact that it is flexible where it needs to be, yet authoritative where that is required.

Obviously that part of presbyterian church government that is jus divinum (by divine right) is unalterable. The difficulty often comes in determining what portion of our church government is jus divinum. The PSI and other such caucus 'statements' or platforms, are not only not the proper venue to discuss such determinations, their brevity and nature are not suited to render much aid in such a discussion.

As men and women under the authority of God's Word, we have agreed to abide by a constitution that defines our polity. The constitution to which we have agreed is not so easily changed. That change which is proper and consensual will come with discussion of the issues - and for that we can thank PSI and its authors. However, presenting a document in the form of a bill or resolution that requires only a simple majority to pass is not a proper way to build consensus. Rather, it could be interpreted by some as a simple majority giving the appearance of a true consensus.

That portion of our church government which we believe to be jus divinum is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith in chapters XX and XXV - XXXI, and to a certain extent in chapters XXI - XXIII. That portion which we regard as flexible and subject to change we have placed in our Book of Church Order (BCO). For example, there is no reason to think: the PCA could not use the concept of a delegated assembly if a sufficient number regarded it to be a wise course of action.

Having said that much of what is contained in PSI is good, though irregular in the manner in which it has been presented, there are also some portions of PSI's statements and denials regarding church polity that are either too vague to be useful or positively incorrect.

By way of example, the PSI states, "We deny that any Christian has the biblical right to ignore or refuse to obey any biblical ruling of a court of elders to whom he has promised subjection."3 It may have been supposed by the church council in Acts 4:1 5ff that they had made a biblical ruling, but Peter and John answered that obedience in that case would constitute a raising of church government to the seat of God (Acts 4:19-20). In other words, we have the example of the apostles themselves that disobedience to an unjust or unbiblical ruling is not only our right, but our responsibility as well. Further, Peter later (Acts 5:29) answered a church council, "We ought to obey God rather than men." At least equally important as the church's authority when speaking from the Scripture is the church's responsibility to speak only from the Scripture when demanding obedience. Though PSI's authors may think that such a statement "goes without saying," it is usually better in such a document to state even the "obvious." Quite simply, church courts do not have the authority to bind men's consciences apart from the word of God.4 Our church’s constitution wisely reminds us of the proper scriptural balance, "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both."5

PSI denies, "that the Church can effectively serve Christ if she irresponsibly opposes and criticizes her leaders privately and publicly; we further deny that the Church can effectively serve Christ if she seeks to function like a democracy, with no recognized and empowered leadership."6 One wonders if this statement was crafted in Vatican City! Surely the PCA does not believe its leaders are above criticism! Who should we think is going to determine whether criticism is responsible or irresponsible? With the "loss" of literally millions of dollars in one of our permanent committees and the withholding of a document (the legal audit) from the board of the PCA corporation, it may not be the criticism that is irresponsible....

Certainly we have a responsibility to "obey them that have the rule" in the church. In that context, of course, we must "consider the end of their conversation," i.e. whether they have conducted themselves according to their office. The office in view, however, is clearly that of a pastor or teaching elder - not a coordinator, president, or permanent committee member.7

Does PSI understand the "recognized and empowered" leadership in the church to be those elders who have been chosen by the people (Acts 14:23; etc.) or does it understand that leadership to be permanent committee members, who should be understood as the servants of the court and who serve at the court's pleasure? The effect of adopting such a statement could be grave for the PCA. Are servants to be regarded as "above criticism?"

Responsible criticism should be welcomed by those in the PCA who have been designated the servants of the Assembly.

The PSI's denial is seen as much more ominous when read in context of its explanatory paragraph,8 "The coordinators and presidents and the permanent committee members whom the General Assembly elects should be able to exercise the leadership roles for which they have been chosen without unwarranted suspicion and criticism. The PCA will be held together, and will be effective, in all her courts, by mutual love and trust, not merely by the rule of law." Such a statement certainly has a pious appearance on first reading, but when we "unpack" the statement some alarming thoughts appear.

First, the PSI does seem to regard the "coordinators and presidents and the permanent committee members" as the leadership that is above criticism. But second, and more disconcerting, is the disregard the document seems to have even for "the rule of law." Me these leaders not only above criticism; should they also now be regarded as "above the law?" The reason we have rules and procedures is that God has told us the human heart is deceitful and not to be trusted (Jeremiah 17:9, etc.). The very reason we have "accountability" safeguards built into our system of government - and this is much of the genius of Presbyterianism - is that we do not deny the biblical doctrine of total depravity. We properly understand that fallen human nature, even in its regenerated state, remains capable of sin of the worst kind. It is, in fact, because we love our brethren as much as we do that we want them to remain accountable to the rule of law:

The PSI claims,10 "We deny that the authority of Christ is vested in one individual or informal group of individuals; we further deny that anyone should lead, or continue to lead, if he does not seek to function at the pleasure of those he serves." Given the fact that neither the PCA Consensus, nor Vision 2000, nor Concerned Presbyterians has been appointed or asked to serve by any court of the PCA, I wonder if this statement strikes others with as much irony as it does this writer.

Affirmations and denials #6-7 are both excellent advice. However, it may be that the issue being addressed in these two is not the root of the problem. What is more likely is that there is not a necessary regard for objective truth in our courts. Majority opinion does not establish truth, nor does the fact that an opinion is held only by a minority make it untrue. Procedural rules such as Robert's are designed to protect the minority from being run over by "procedural progress" in a meeting.

Though the moderator or president of an assembly has much power, it is not absolute. He, as all others, must abide by the rules previously agreed to. If there are some who desire to change the rules, then there are constitutional means available to them to do so. The affirmation at number 6 that every procedural disagreement must be followed by litigation or the majority has no responsibility to hear the minority view is ill suited to work either peace or purity in the PCA.11

Interestingly, after referring to the courts of the PCA as "courts" for four pages, PSI finally asserts its denial "that our session meetings, presbytery meetings, and general assemblies should be adequately and frilly described by the term 'church courts."' Perhaps the PSI is correct. But even if such a view is correct, there is a procedure for amending our constitution to say as much. PSI states, "Our description of session, presbyteries, and the General Assembly as 'church courts' tends to place the emphasis on judicial matters and rules of procedure rather than on worship, fellowship, and ministry."12 Here again, there is a seeming disdain for "rules."

It should be emphasized that there is nothing at all in our constitution that prevents "worship, fellowship, and ministry" from taking place at Session, Presbytery, or General Assembly meetings.13 However, given the fact that PSI seems to regard "leaders" as those members of permanent committees who should be above criticism and above the law, this writer has some concern that there may be a tendency to turn our courts into a Christian version of the "happenings" of the 1960's while turning the real work of Christ's church over to the "leaders" whom we should trust more than we trust the rule of law.

If there is indeed a consensus within the PCA that Presbyterian Church government is either unbiblical or unworkable, then we have constitutional means available to us for changing our form of government. The PCA has wisely required super-majorities to amend either our BCO or the Westminster documents that comprise our constitution. A majority of those voting at two separate General Assemblies as well as the intervening consent of two-thirds of the Presbyteries are necessary to amend the BCO. To amend any of the Westminster documents (as well as BCO §26-3, 5) requires a three-fourths majority voting at two separate General Assemblies plus the consent of three-fourths of the Presbyteries.

2 PSI, p.13.

3 Ibid., p.14.

5 WCF, XXXI:iv.

6 PSI p.15.

7 see Hebrews 13:17, 7 where the leaders or rulers are characterized as those who "spoke the Word of God."

8 PSI, p.16.

9 Romans 13:8-10.

10 PS1, p.15.

12 PSI, p.17.