We need to stand against the winds of culture and speak clearly to issues of the day. But we cannot let how something “looks” to those inside or outside the church dictate our faith or practice. Who cares how a moderator’s ruling “looks?” Was it according to Scripture, the BCO, and Robert’s Rules? Those are the only questions we need to ask when evaluating a ruling of the chair.

The 52^nd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) gathered under the shadow of Lookout Mountain this past week. One of the moments that garnered widespread attention online was when Moderator Kevin DeYoung interrupted Teaching Elder Timothy Brindle to remind him to follow the rules of decorum.

DeYoung interrupted Brindle when he began to speculate about the motives of Irwyn Ince, the Coordinator of MNA. Regardless of whether the concerns raised are valid—for the record, I share Brindle’s concerns—one cannot indulge speculation in a floor speech about another’s motives in a General Assembly. Any parliamentarian worth his salt who was present would agree with DeYoung. Doug Wilson, however, found the flavor of the moment less than appealing.

In classic Wilson style, he created a video where he provocatively questioned whether decorum should have been the governing factor in the Assembly. If decorum is so essential, what should we think about the Apostle Paul’s decorum (or lack thereof) in his letter to the Galatians? Doesn’t Paul’s example demonstrate that vigorous, manly debate should be the order of the day, given the issues at hand? After all, Paul’s lack of decorum concerned Jewish Christians avoiding table fellowship with Gentiles, a first-century example of the kind of affinity group division Brindle was addressing.

Does Wilson have a point that DeYoung was tithing the mint, dill, and cumin of Robert’s Rules while neglecting the weightier matters of the law? No, that’s not the case at all.

When viewed with a wide-angle lens, DeYoung’s intervention in the debate was consonant with both Scripture and Robert’s Rules. Here’s why.

Get the Story Straight

Wilson’s video is laced with evaluations of DeYoung’s comments. But the commentary Wilson offers does not reflect what was actually said.

Wilson paints a picture of the otherwise orthodox DeYoung bowing to the “invisible and imperious progressive standing right behind him.” He claims that DeYoung “chastised” Brindle. None of these caricatures are accurate.

As Brindle was speaking, shouts of “point of order” could be heard across the hall. DeYoung interrupted and said, “We ask you to speak with decorum and not in a way that is personally attacking. It is germane to bring up issues relative to this particular motion, but would ask you to speak in a more temperate way.” That is all DeYoung said before the time ran out on the debate. He spoke a mere 39 words, cautioning Brindle to speak more temperately.

Also, DeYoung acknowledged that Brindle’s comments were germane to the debate. I do not see how Wilson can rightly characterize these words as “chastising.” DeYoung was simply doing his job as Moderator: ensuring that the debate did not get out of hand.

We Must Keep Our Vows

As Christian men gathered in the General Assembly, we must uphold our vows. All Teaching and Ruling Elders have vowed to approve of the Form of Government of the PCA contained in the Book of Church Order (BCO). In doing so, all Elders in the PCA promise subjection to our brethren in the Lord. The Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) state that unless the BCO provides otherwise, the latest edition of Robert’s Rules is the standard for parliamentary procedure (RAO 19-1).

Read More