Many denominations are experiencing internal difficulty now. And how could it be otherwise? The whole history of the church has been marked by difficulty. While the church was in its infancy, “a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews” (Acts 6:1). Shall we escape disputes when our predecessors and contemporary brothers do not? “Until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13) there will be disagreements among us.

I see that your statement was criticized by some, and that some even took offense to it. For my part, I believe two principles apply when brothers and sisters say that they grieve and call for lament. One, I believe their claims ought to be recognized: if you say that you are aggrieved, I believe you. Moreover, I intend to be in prayer for the church’s peace, as you ask. Two, I believe that other believers have a right to share their own feelings in response, to disagree charitably, and to ask for clarification or defend themselves if appropriate. The apostle Paul did not simply accept the Corinthians claims without dissent, but shared his own grief and sought to persuade them to his understanding.

I do not imply that you are Corinthians. I mean rather that the Corinthian saga proves that believers may differ, even publicly, and that claims of grief may be met with a response other than complete, uncritical acceptance. Indeed, does not the law presuppose that believers may differ when it says “you shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him” (Lev. 19:17)?

I take this statement as your doing that, but in return make this response in obedience to that command. I do so reluctantly, not wishing to seem argumentative and fearing lest I be misunderstood. It is hard for people whose cultures differ to communicate without misunderstanding. It is harder still when an attempt is made between people who do not personally know each other and via a digital forum. Still, the thing is worth attempting. So here’s my humble attempt at offering a charitable response that accepts your sincerity and good intentions while seeking truth in what is a painful matter.

First, I regret that I don’t understand some of the things you mention. What, for example, is a microaggression? Do you mean you were insulted? To be insulted is no trifle (Matt. 5:22), and you have ample ground for complaint on that point, especially if it involves some prejudice against you (Num. 12:1-9).

I simply don’t understand the preference for what sounds like a term of recent coinage from some field of extra-scriptural thought. Or again, how is it that “our life together has wounded rather than healed”? That’s a stark claim, and while I lament you feel thus, it would be well to buttress it with some explanation.

Thus also when you lament that “minority and female leaders remain sidelined.” What does it mean to be sidelined? Or again, what does it mean that “the denomination’s structures leave little room for genuine mutuality”? When I search “mutuality” I find it popular with groups like CBE. I hope you do not use it as they do, and that you can see why some are alarmed when you use the same terms as the most prominent advocates of female ordination.[1]

On some other points your claims invite comment. You are right to “lament the schismatic culture of the PCA” insofar as polarization is a result of rivalry and dissension (Gal. 5:21), though where it involves dutiful resistance to wrong, those who do so cannot be accounted guilty. There have been things in our midst that required opposition, as when a now-departed church allowed its property to be used for a festival celebrating that egregious, nature-denying lie that is unhelpfully called ‘transgenderism.’[2]

It is also noteworthy that all institutions have a culture that is inherently schismatic in that it tends to drive out those that don’t share its values or that are either more or less zealous about them. There are people who have left the PCA because they thought it awash with fundamentalism, and there are those that have done so because they regard it as overrun with liberal compromise. Its culture has driven out people on both sides. Workplaces and political parties do likewise, as do other churches.

Many denominations are experiencing internal difficulty now. And how could it be otherwise? The whole history of the church has been marked by difficulty. While the church was in its infancy, “a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews” (Acts 6:1). Shall we escape disputes when our predecessors and contemporary brothers do not? “Until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13) there will be disagreements among us.

When you say that “some have described the denominational environment as emotionally or spiritually abusive,” I regret that they feel that way, but could greatly wish that you would not be so quick to use such terms. I have a thick family history of abuse – have a great aunt who shot her husband in legally-justified self-defense, to give you an idea of how bad some of it was – and would prefer it if such a charge was not laid to the denomination without some clarification as to precisely what is meant. If there are people who can say that, say, reading what people say about them on social media makes them feel like they did growing up with a manipulative parent, then that is indeed a problem that cries for aid. But we live in a society in which abuse is used too flippantly (e.g., to denounce responsible spanking), and it would be best, as such, for it to not be used without a clear statement of just what is in view.

When you say that “faithful leaders in good standing are subjected to unchecked slander and baseless innuendo on social media, which has begun to function as an unofficial court of the church,” I’m inclined to agree. I’m not on social media, but I’ve seen enough to suspect you have a point. I would only rejoin, politely, that there has been well-founded criticism and concern toward some unfaithful leaders as well, and that the sheep have turned to such outlets to testify against wrong because of their perception of the courts’ unwillingness to do so.

Elsewhere you lament “the tone of our public witness.” There is plenty of occasion for some (especially online) to do better on that point, but a sharp tone is sometimes appropriate. Paul wished the Galatians’ troublers “would emasculate themselves” (5:12); rejoiced that the grief he caused the Corinthians led to repentance (2 Cor. 7:8-11); and instructed Titus to “rebuke them sharply” who were insubordinate (1:13). There have been things in our denomination that have invited a sharp tone. There was a pastor in Utah who advised that sometimes it is appropriate to tell God off with cursing. Should that have received a gentle tone? Should one not rather decry such blasphemy at hearing it?

When you say you “remain discouraged by the absence of leaders of color at the national level in the PCA,” I’m afraid you lose me. We have had such people as national leaders (General Assembly moderators, agency heads), including a signer of this lament. Nor can I see the propriety of such a classification scheme. Dividing people into ‘white’ and ‘people of color’ seems simplistic and arbitrary, and potentially offensive. By what right do we classify people by skin color? Because our forefathers did so? But is that not one of the things we have repented?

Neither do I follow when you say that you “desire a spiritual family where women are empowered, minority voices are centered and celebrated rather than tolerated, and leadership reflects the global and multicultural body of Christ.” Women are empowered in all the ways that God intends: to fight sin, to know God in Christ, to be a blessing unto others. Many serve on staff and perform administrative roles in our churches – the two largest PCA churches in my presbytery have more female than male staff – participate in worship as choir members and instrumentalists, direct children’s ministries and outreach efforts, and help other women with counsel, instruction, and other support like baby showers and weddings. They attend seminary (even with financial support at the denominational level through the Unity Fund), often lead in parachurch entities with which PCA churches cooperate, work as missionaries, can serve as deacons’ assistants, participate in WIC, even get on both ‘confessionalist’ and ‘missional’ podcasts and blogs. They just don’t hold office, nor are they to perform certain functions in public worship.

Minority voices have been centered and celebrated by the Unity Fund, dedicated ministries for them, in ByFaith articles and admin committee podcasts, at General Assembly workshops, in seminary curricula, etc. Indeed, it seems to me that there have been some who repaid their celebration with sharp criticism.

For our leadership to reflect the global church would make it unrepresentative here. How would that fulfill our assertion that “the scriptural form of church government . . . is representative” (BCO 1-1)? Indeed, the church being centered now in the global south and presbyterian government being a minority within it, adherence to this idea would require drawing our leadership from afar, and mainly from churches with episcopal or congregational polities—and probably with those charismatic tendencies that we deny.

I welcome Baptist and Lutheran African, Asian, and Latin missionaries laboring here; but I don’t think that my church should need to ask our brothers in Taiwan or Kenya to send a man over any time we need an elder or deacon. Indeed, I feel compelled to ask you to examine yourselves and to consider your motives. Could it be that you are regarding people according to the flesh and are so eager to have people who look a certain way that you discount that God may have no shortage of people whom he calls to office here that do not match the demographic profile of the larger church? Have you forgotten that “we regard no one according to the flesh” and that “even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor 5:16)? The church is Christ’s body; how then can it be regarded according to the flesh without incurring that partiality that James condemns (2:1)?

I do not understand your meaning when you say people are “publicly belittled and demonized, if not by our words then by our legislative actions.” Do you speak of ecclesiastical actions or of civil politics?  For you also speak of denigratory “public figures” and lament they “find widespread sympathy and support in our denomination.” I’m an independent, but if David honored Saul when he mistreated him (1 Sam. 24), and if Peter could say “honor the emperor” (1 Pet. 2:17) when Rome was in the turmoil of Nero’s reign, I think that believers can vote for Mr. Trump in spite of his many sins.

You are however right to lament when they join in the cult of personality surrounding him; but I would say the same of those that hero-worshipped Mr. Obama, and know many PCA voters for Trump did so distastefully and regarding him as a lesser evil. Moreover, as “circumstances are the creators of most men’s opinions” (A.V. Dicey), and our circumstances differ, I expect our opinions are apt to diverge in politics. That should not be cause of division, as such.

I write not to be obtuse, nor to question you needlessly, but because I truly don’t understand your perspective at some points. I hear of your pain with sadness, but I do not thereby understand all its reasons (Prov. 14:10). I would moreover think it presumptuous and arrogant to act as though I did, and fear lest I should thereby offend you. But I fear your thinking is mistaken at some points, and sounds close to that of those who go astray.[3] Many have been so enamored of their identity in this world that they made it central and lived and interpreted all things by it. Beware lest you stumble on that point.

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation, and helped modernize Volume I of James Hervey’s classic dialogue on evangelical faith, Theron and Aspasio, available now at Monergism.

[1] Similarity of terminology is no proof, of course, that the same values are advocated: people with different aims can (and often do) use the same terms. And scripture does urge mutual love, encouragement, and submission (Rom. 1:12, Eph. 5:21). But when a term is used without elaboration and is also popular with those that twist scripture to deny God’s order for church government – and when a PCA presbytery has just submitted an overture to allow the ordination of deaconesses – one is justified in feeling concern at what its use means, and for asking clarification on that point.

[2] A reference to when Memorial Presbyterian allowed the play festival “Transluminate” to occur on its property. See here: https://reformation21.org/a-pca-church-is-not-neutral-ground/

[3] There have been no shortage of people who have advocated for the liberty to pursue their own preferred “ministry methodologies” in the Reformed churches over the centuries, and often it does not end well. You signers of the lament speak of the need for “pastoral flexibility,” but many others who have spoken a similar language have gone on to a bad end. 100 years ago there were many who issued a statement in the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America “for the maintenance of the faith of our church, the preservation of its unity, and the protection of the liberties of its ministers and people.” They also said that “we do not desire liberty to go beyond the teachings of evangelical Christianity. But we maintain that it is our constitutional right and our Christian duty within these limits to exercise liberty of thought and teaching, that we may more effectively preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World.” And they lamented “the evidences of division in our beloved church, in the face of a world so desperately in need of a united testimony to the gospel of Christ.” That excellence of sentiment was built upon a denial of the authority of the Westminster Confession and of the inerrancy of scripture, to which concepts the authors objected strenuously, finding in both only what they deemed helpful and not what the church has always believed. I mention it, not because I believe that you who have signed the call to lament adhere to the same doctrine as the authors of the Auburn Affirmation, but to emphasize that such language is perilous and readily seized upon by wrongdoers, and therefore especially likely to cause alarm amongst those that are anxious to prevent the PCA following into its predecessor’s steps and falling into apostasy. Liberty is a favorite watchword with the normalizers of error, and those that emphasize it risk drawing near such normalizers, who find in such things an opportunity to ply their evil trade.