I would encourage fathers and brothers to consider the overture to form a committee with open minds….Perhaps in the last 50 years, the PCA has grown in maturity and can have discussions she was unable to have in her early days. Such would be a worthy endeavor to finish the unfinished business of the PCA’s founding.

This year marks the 50^th Anniversary of the Temporary Statement on the Directory for Worship in the Presbyterian Church in America’s Book of Church Order (BCO). Multiple Overtures to the General Assembly in the past few years have sought to address this line:

“Temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly to preface the Directory for Worship: The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts…”^[1]

It then goes on to specify the exceptions for BCO 56, 57, 58, and 59-3 as “obligatory.”

The Awkward Status of the Directory

This leaves the Directory with an awkward status. The Directory is not “obligatory,” but is approved and to be taken seriously. Indeed, it is to be taken as “the mind of the church agreeable to the Standards.” How can directives be biblical but not obligatory? This was obviously a statement awaiting further clarity when revised and finalized in future assemblies.^[2]

This failure to complete the revision and adoption of the Directory has led to tensions in our Book of Church Order, as pointed out by Dr. Morton H. Smith, the first Stated Clerk of the PCA. Smith points out in his Commentary on the PCA Book of Church Order that the Directory was approved in the same manner as the rest of the BCO in the sections on the Rules of Discipline and the Form of Government, yet with an additional statement from one Assembly. Smith points out that the statement of one General Assembly cannot bind another Assembly simply by a statement, casting doubt on the temporary statement itself.^[3] Dr. Smith, as Stated Clerk, repeatedly docketed the Directory as “unfinished business” in early Assemblies.^[4] After a few failed attempts to revise the Directory, eventually the 28^th General Assembly was overtured to merely delete the temporary statement. That Assembly, however, believed they could not do so without a process of adoption requiring the input of two-thirds of the presbyteries.^[5]

The failure to address the statement leaves the rest of the BCO understanding the Directory in a different manner than the Temporary statement, as the Directory is referred to in the BCO as if it had full authority in the Preface Part III and BCO 26-1 listing the Directory as part of the Constitution, and in authoritative directives to the session in BCO 12-5e to conduct worship according to the Directory for Worship.

The BCO 12-5e directive to the session to use the Directory creates a tension experienced by sessions today, as this tension complicated a recent PCA judicial case (SJC 2023-20). Standing Judicial Commission member TE David Coffin points out in a footnote: “From the outset please notice the problem here: The PCA does not have a Constitutional Directory of Worship, but it does have a Constitutional provision that requires the Session to act according to the Directory of Worship!”^[6] Thus, the Directory at present could be argued to have more force of law than the temporary statement gives it, yet without the revision process that the Form of Government and Rules for Discipline underwent.

Finishing & Fixing?

Recently, there has been some interest in finishing the project of revising and adopting the Directory for Worship. This year (2025) the General Assembly will consider proposals of constitutionalizing some of the less controversial chapters (60-63) or appointing a committee to do the work and submitting the product to the Assembly. This follows a proposal at the 51^st General Assembly to constitutionalize one additional chapter of the Directory (BCO 53) which narrowly failed the Assembly, partly over debate as to its rationale to address a problem of who may preach (which was already addressed elsewhere in the BCO), and due to reservations on the wording of the revisions contained in the overture.

Admittedly, there is also resistance to the very suggestion of revising and adopting the Directory. For instance on this site, an article was posted desiring to keep the status quo.^[7] Sometimes online debate over the issue can suggest that a move to constitutionalize the Directory would result in division within the PCA, with some refusing to consider the idea under any terms.

Why the Pushback?

One reason for the pushback is that when certain chapters of the Directory have been considered lately, those chapters were considered to clarify what was allowable and what was not (BCO 59 on marriage, or BCO 53 on preaching). Some have said in private conversations with me on this topic that they would be comfortable with the Directory as it exists now in our BCO (which is largely the old PCUS 1930’s Directory unrevised), but fear the process would result in a narrowing and a legal dictating approach to worship. This led one opponent to resist the idea of a revised and authorized Directory as such an effort was “for the sake of narrowing the margins of allowability for worship in the PCA.”^[8]

Thus, the two sides have often been cast as those who want the Directory of Worship in order to narrow acceptable worship practices, and those who do not want the Directory addressed in order to maintain the current latitude. The question is if there may be a mediating position. Can revising and giving final approval to the Directory for Worship not be about imposing a radically narrower set of rules than exists now?

Indeed, answering yes to the previous question may very well be the only way the PCA may be able to tackle this unfinished business of the PCA. This would require an understanding that the main reasons to explore the constitutionalizing of the Directory of Worship in the PCA should not be to radically narrow the Directory further. The Directory would need to reflect and allow some latitude for diversity of practice that has existed throughout the Reformed Tradition in worship in areas that are not a matter of Biblical fidelity.^[9]

So, if not for narrowing the worship practice of the PCA, especially beyond the current outlines of the Directory, why would we even need to finish the work of revising and adopting the Directory as fully constitutional?

Four Reasons to Revise & Adopt without Narrowing

The Directory for Worship erects some fences (rules in the language of “shall” or “must”) and much more guidance (the language of “fitting” and “proper”). This distinguishes it from other sections of the BCO in the Form of Government and the Rules for Discipline, as the Directory gives guidance more than it commands. Indeed, the Directory in other denominations is consulted on a more regular basis to order worship, not just for rules but wise counsel. With that in mind, here are four reasons I see that finishing the work of revising and adopting the Directory could be worthwhile and even unifying for the PCA:

1) To Aid Sessions: BCO 12-5e and Ordering Worship

BCO 12-5e instructs the session “to exercise, in accordance with the Directory for Worship, authority over” all aspects of worship by the congregation. That means, it is the session’s (obligatory) duty to conduct worship according to the Directory for Worship. Yet, the Directory has not been revised from the base material that is nearly one hundred years since its last edit. The older language and lack of revising in this century has led many to ignore the Directory and instead go to other resources to formulate worship or to other denominations’ guides instead of having a help in our own Standards.

Some of the current guidance of the Directory is ignored and/or out of date. For instance: is the “fit” or “proper” guidance of the Directory helpful about beginning the service with the Doxology (BCO 52-1), having offering as an “act of worship” (54-2), or is it understood what the language of “require,” “shall,” and “must” mean in comparison to “should” requirements like keeping a “register of all the names of all persons whom he marries” (59-7)?

Read More