The result is that we have a committee presenting conflicting motions to the General Assembly. We have two different minorities arguing the opposite point. Paedocommunion will be one of the hot issues at the 40th General Assembly.

The PCA’s Review of Presbytery Records committee (RPR) met this past week, and paedocommunion was the hot issue. The result was conflicting main motions. In the case of Pacific Northwest Presbytery and Central Florida, RPR said paedocommunion was not a view hostile to our system of doctrine. In the case of Eastern Pennsylvania, RPR said paedocommunion was hostile to the system, stating it was wrong for Eastern Pennsylvania to ordain two candidates who held this view. In all cases, there will be minority reports, but the minority reports will be arguing the exact opposite positions.

Here’s how it happened.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST PRESBYTERY

Last year, the General Assembly dealt with an error in the actions of Pacific Northwest Presbytery. Here’s how I reported it last year:

We next considered an exception of substance to Pacific Northwest Presbytery: “Presbytery granted an exception which is out of accord “that is, hostile to the system or striking at the vitals of religion” (RAO 16-3.e.5.d). The exception of substance was this:

I believe that scripture nowhere prohibits young children from coming to the Lord’s Table. If they have been baptized, I think that the only thing that should prevent an infant from coming to the table is the very obvious issue of those able to take solid food. We are nowhere invited to speculate as to whether others are truly in the covenant of grace, except through church discipline

My exception is to the phrase “and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.”

Pacific Northwest took the following action:

Recommendation No. 3: that Presbytery find [name omitted] exceptions to be more than semantic, but “not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine” (BCO 21-4), and that he be given full liberty to preach and teach them.

There was a substitute motion from a minority that sought to find it a difference that did not oppose the fundamentals of our system. This motion failed by a large margin. The RPR’s recommendation was then adopted by a large majority as well.

This year, Pacific Northwest Presbytery responded to this exception (you can read the response here). All responses to the RPR committee are dealt with by a subcommittee of the RPR. At some past meetings, the chairman had taken volunteers for this committee. This year, the chairman appointed the six committee members of this subcommittee which included TE Daniel Gilchrist as chairman and Pacific Northwest Presbytery’s representative, RE Howie Donahoe, who serves on the SJC and served as defense counsel for TE Peter Leithart (though according to Mr. Donahoe, he did not vote on this issue).

The sub-committee returned recommending unanimously that RPR find Pacific Northwest’s response satisfactory. However, this response did not admit of any wrongdoing and stated that they had ordained 14 men with this exception to our Standards. Pacific Northwest also noted that it had regularly granted men with the paedocommunion full liberty to teach and preach that paedocommunion is the biblical position.

When this recommendation was heard, a substitute motion was made which recommended that the response be found unsatisfactory and referred to the SJC. This substitute motion was defeated by a vote of 23–25, and the main motion was adopted by a larger margin.

Several members of RPR will present a minority report and offer a substitute motion to the General Assembly. They argue in part:

In light of the overwhelming affirmation by the 39th GA that the granting of this exception was out of accord “that is, hostile to the system or striking at the vitals of religion,” to now find the response of the Presbytery satisfactory would be a complete reversal of an action taken only a year ago.

They will argue that the General Assembly should not back down from the position it took last year and instead find Pacific Northwest Presbytery’s response unsatisfactory and send it to the SJC for adjudication (you can read the full minority report here).

CENTRAL FLORIDA

The next issue was in regard to Central Florida. One reviewer of their records had recommended that RPR say that Central Florida was wrong to ordain a man who held to paedocommunion because it is a view that is hostile to the system. This motion was defeated. There will also be a minority report on this matter, requesting that the GA take issue with Central Florida’s actions. You can read that minority report here.

EASTERM PENNSYLVANIA

In light of the two previous actions, it is clear that the RPR committee was divided on this issue, but it seemed that the majority believed that paedocommunion was not hostile to our system of doctrine. But that may not be case. A reviewer of the records of Eastern Pennsylvania believed that the presbytery was in error for ordaining a man with the following exception to the Westminster Standards:

I take exception to WLC, Q.177 in the words “and that only to such as are of years an ability to examine themselves” because this prevents baptized members of the visible church (namely covenant children who have received the sign and seal of baptism and are therefore entitled to all the benefits of the blessings of Christ) from approaching the Lord’s Table le (sic). I take it that Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11:28-29 were directed to adults but were not meant to be taken as a general statementg (sic) applying to young children.

Another man held to a similar exception. His view did not have to be recorded in his own words like the previous candidate since this came before the Rules of Assembly Operationchange at General Assembly last year. Therefore his view is only a summary of his view recorded by the Presbytery and not the candidate. His exception is characterized by the Presbytery as the following:

“(2) the admission of all covenant children to the Lord’s Supper”

The motion to register GA’s disagreement with allowing those differences to the Standards passed by a vote of 36-9-2. They stated that they ordained men whose view was hostile to the system. There will also be a minority report requesting that GA find that this is not hostile to the system. You can read it here.

It is important to note that the concern of RPR here was not only with some of the other problematic statements in the candidates’ differences with the Westminster Standards on paedocommunion. The next day, efforts were made to restate RPR’s objection to Eastern Pennsylvania to make it more about the rationale for paedocommunion than the paedocommunion itself. The committee voted against these efforts.

CONCLUSION

The result is that we have a committee presenting conflicting motions to the General Assembly. We have two different minorities arguing the opposite point. Paedocommunion will be one of the hot issues at the 40th General Assembly.

Wes White is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of New Covenant Presbyterian Church in Spearfish, SD. This article is from his blog and is used with permission. 

[Editor’s note: Original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]