As the General Assembly resumed business on Thursday after the morning seminars, the first item of business taken up was the Review of Presbytery Records.  It is the work of this committee to review records from the previous calendar year of all Presbyteries in the denomination.  This is a long, arduous process and that committee now meets a month prior to the assembly to complete their work.

In this year’s report, there were three separate actions taken on the minutes of three different presbyteries concerning the highly controversial topic of Paedocommunion.  In the minds of many, these actions were internally inconsistent; in two cases approving Paedocommunion, in another not approving (broadly speaking).

The Committee brought this topic to the floor by moving approval of the recommendations concerning the Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNP).  This recommendation was defeated, which left the assembly without a proposed action.  The Moderator ruled that a motion to recommit was in order.

A motion was then made to recommit action on Items #53, #6, and #14 – all of which dealt with Paedocommunion – with instructions to report back to the 41st General Assembly a harmonious answer on all three.  This motion carried, and thus the discussion on Paedocommunion will return to the assembly next year.

Next up was a special order for a report from the Nominating Committee.  As usually, the vast majority of the nominees from the committee were approved without any challenges from the floor.  However, there were a few vacancies and a few challenges. 

Those that were actually contested had the following results:

Contested TE for the class of 2016 for the Administrative Committee.  TE Martin Hedman of South Coast Presbytery was elected after a challenge from the floor

Contested TE for the class of 2016 (a separate slot).  TE Jerry Schriver of Metro Atlanta Presbytery was elected after a challenge from the floor.

A vacant RE slot for the class of 2016 was filled by a vote between two men nominated from the floor:  RE Frank Aderholt and RE James A. Hodge.  Hodge was elected.

For the Constitutional Business Committee, TE Roger Collins of Mississippi Valley Presbytery was elected after a challenge from the floor.

A vacancy for a RE Alternate on the CBC resulted in two nominees from the floor.  RE Flynt Jones of Central Carolina was elected over RE Barry Sheets of New River Presbytery.

For the Christian Education Committee, RE Donald Guthrie, Missouri Presbytery, was nominated from the floor and elected to replace the Nominating Committee’s candidate, RE Gerald Koerkenmeier, Illiana.  Dr. Guthrie, former professor of Christian Education at Covenant Seminary – recently moved to a similar position at Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary – was elected.

For alternate TE on CE/P. TE Ron Gleason of South Coast Presbytery was elected after challenge from two floor nominees.

RE Carlo Hansen of Iliana was elected to the Class of 2016 for Covenant Seminary against a floor nominee.

For alternate TE on Interchurch Relations, the Committee nominee TE David Gilleran of Blue Ridge Presbytery was challenged by TE Paul Gilchrist of Tennessee Valley Presbytery.  Dr. Gilchrist, a former Stated Clerk of the PCA, was elected.

For TE in class of 2016 for the Standing Judicial Commission, TE Howell A. Burkhalter of Piedmont Triad was elected over floor candidate, TE Grover Gunn of Covenant Presbytery.  A counted vote was required, favoring Burkhalter by 304-269

During the afternoon session, the committee came back on the floor to conduct one additional election that had been left out of the earlier report.  There was a vacancy for a Ruling Elder on Reformed University Ministries in the class of 2017.  three names had been submitted as floor nominees.  RE Bill Porter of Rocky Mountain Presbytery was elected.

The Assembly then returned to the report of Review of Presbytery Records

A motion was made to strike from committee’s report the following item from the report of Heritage Presbytery

Exception: September 10, 2011 (RAO 16-3.e.5 and WCF 107-109) Presbytery judges exception “b” as “not hostile.”  The candidate stated in regard to the uses of image in worship that he believed “images of Jesus from film and art may be used in worship to ‘enhance’ worship, provided these images do not become objects of worship in themselves.”  Such an exception is hostile to the system of doctrine and strikes at the vitals of religion

The motion to strike failed.

In the report concerning Metropolitan New York Presbytery, a motion was made to strike the following recommendation:

Exception: March 11, 2011 (WCF 21-7; WLC 116; WSC 59) Presbytery approved the licensure of a man who stated that he believed that scripture does not teach that the day of the Sabbath has changed to the first day of the week and “that the moral requirements communicated in the 4^th commandment is satisfied by Christian worship on Sunday, but that God does not command or require Christians to rest either for a whole day or specifically on Sunday as stated in the Standards.

The motion to strike failed.

A motion to commit a recommendation concerning the Ohio Valley Presbytery back to the committee for clarification failed.  The recommendation which follows, was approved: 

e.  That the following response to the 39^th GA exception be found unsatisfactory:  Exception: May 7, 2010 (WCF 29.3 and BCO 58) – Presbytery approved practice of TEs administering communion via web video conferencing for members of a congregation who live at a great distance from the meeting place of the congregation (with a RE present to dispense the elements)

Response: The statement of the Exception of Substance that “[p]resbytery approved practice of TEs administering communion via web video conferencing for members of a congregation who live at a great distance from the meeting place of the congregation (with a RE present to dispense the elements)” evidences that the RPR Committee’s concern focuses solely on the physical separation of people from the place where the Word has been preached, the elements set apart, the Table fenced, etc. to those who the Session has, in accordance with the BCO, determined to be eligible to come to the Lord’s Table and who earnestly seek to receive the spiritual benefits that God has promised to His elect who rightly participate in this means of grace (WLC 170). The group “who live at a great distance from the meeting place of the congregation” is located in Middlesboro, KY.  Middlesboro is a greater than a two hour drive from the closest PCA church in Ohio Valley Presbytery (hereafter identified as OVP) and a four and one half hour drive from Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (hereafter identified as TPC), the church given permission by OVP to serve communion to this group.  In early 2009, the group of believers in Middlesboro contacted MNA in Atlanta to request that a PCA church be established in the southeast corner of Kentucky where OVP, Tennessee Valley and Westminster presbyteries all converge.  MNA referred the request to OVP.  After informally consulting with Tennessee Valley and Westminster and determining that neither had plans to do church planting in that area at any time in the near future, the Session of TPC agreed to take the lead on behalf of OVP and offer Bible studies and work with those families with the goal of planting a church there with the assistance of other OVP pastors.   When the group requested Lord’s Day worship services, the TPC Session, which had continued to develop and (sic) ongoing shepherding relationship with them, agreed to send of the Senior Pastor and a Ruling Elder to Middlesboro once a month to lead worship and serve communion.  Subsequently, in God’s providence, TPC became able to “broadcast” the TPC worship services every week by live Web streaming video to supplement the monthly on-site service with the worship bulletin being sent to them to allow them to fully participate in the singing of the hymns and psalms, the unison confessions and prayers, and every other part of the worship except the receiving of communion which is part of TPC’s weekly worship. Because the TPC Session understands communion to be one of the ordinary means of grace which Acts 2:42-27 identifies as God’s means for building His Church and that this means should be used frequently as are the other means, it entered into a season of prayer, study of both scripture and the PCA’s constitutional documents, and discussion with respect to its ability and responsibility to offer communion on a weekly basis unless providentially hindered to God’s people in Middlesboro who desired to grow in grace and establish a Reformed witness in that part of the presbytery.  The TPC Session became fully persuaded that it had the authority to serve communion in Middlesboro in full conformity with the constitution of the PCA by marrying the live video streaming of its worship service with the physical presence of a Ruling Elder who would carry out the responsibilities laid out in BCO 8-3 and assure that communion was received consistent with BCO 58 and WCF 29.  However, wanting to be in full submission to their brethren, the TPC Session brought their plan to OVP by means of a Reference with a commitment to implement this plan only if OVP concurred which concurrence was given at the May 2010 stated meeting of OVP. 

With respect to what seems to be the basis for calling the serving of communion to the group in Middlesboro, KY an Exception of Substance, OVP notes the widely accepted practice in PCA churches of serving communion to parents who are working in a church’s nursery and thus not physically present in the room where the congregation is worshiping (and in many congregations they are not even able to view the service but only to hear it over a speaker) as well as the practice of churches which, because of a large attendance at a worship service, seat their “overflow” in a fellowship hall, auxiliary chapel or other area where they watch the service over closed circuit TV and have communion served to them using element which have been prepositioned in that location and not brought from the worship area where the elements were “set apart.”  By allowing these practices without question or challenge, the PCA has clearly established the principle that the serving of communion to believers who are in all respects eligible to receive but who are in a separate room is allowable by our constitutional documents. In light of the unchallenged practice in the PCA of serving communion to people not physically present in the same room where the Word has been preached, the elements set apart, the Table fenced, etc. but fully participate in the worship service using electronic means and absent the RPR Committee’s citing of any reference in scripture or the Constitution of the PCA or a deliverance of the General Assembly regarding any specific distance from the place where scripture is being proclaimed and the elements of communion are being set apart beyond which distance the setting apart of the elements and the fencing of the Table are no longer efficacious and the serving of communion to God’s people is not allowed, Ohio Valley Presbytery respectfully requests that the 40^th General Assembly find that its action regarding allowing the serving of communion to God’s people in Middlesboro KY as recorded in the minutes of its May 2010 fails to meet the RAO’s definition of an Exception of Substance.

Rationale: We commend OVP for the concern they have demonstrated for the people in Middlesboro.  The CRPR agrees with OVP that the concern focuses on the physical separation of people from the elements of the Lord’s Supper that have been set apart. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with all participants and the elements physically present in the same place (Matthew 26:26-35; Mark 14:22-31; Luke 22:14-23). The abuse of the Lord’s Supper at the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) could only have taken place with the participants and elements in the same place. Paul stated five times, “When you come together,” the implication being that the Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated together. The Westminster Confession of Faith 29:3 states, in part, that the bread and the cup are to be given “to none who are not then present in the congregation.” Further, the Westminster Larger Catechism 176 states, in part, that “the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper agree. . . (that) both are seals of the same covenant, (and) are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other.” Finally, BCO 58-5 states, “The table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered, and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the elders in a convenient place together, the minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and thanksgiving.” The implication, then, of Scripture, The Westminster Standards, and the BCO is that the participants and the elements that have been set apart are physically in the same place. Regarding the presence of a Ruling Elder, it shall be noted that neither Scripture, The Westminster Standards, of the BCO require or necessitate his presence. On the contrary, the administration by a Teaching Elder is required.

After the committee report was completed, a motion was made to reconsider a particular action involving Eastern Canada Presbytery.  Reconsideration was approved and a motion was made to strike the following: 

Exception: March 3-5, 2011 (BCO 3-1 and BCO 13-9) Presbytery may not /assign a temporary session without the concurrence of the church. 

The motion to strike failed by a vote count of 228-314.