If brothers are willing to submit to our constitution despite privately desiring women’s ordination, then they are welcome. But it is time to cease both the sophistry and evasion on this point as well as the open attempts to make the PCA into something it never has been—and by God’s grace—never will be.

One of my first duties after being elected clerk of a former presbytery was to notify half a dozen of my fellow elders that the moderator had appointed them to a judicial committee. They were to investigate the Christian character of one of our brothers in light of allegations made by a fellow elder in our presbytery.

The alleged crime of our brother was publicly repeating concerns he and others shared regarding a denominational institution. His comments were blunt and perhaps impolitic, but one of our presbytery colleagues asserted his comments were slanderous and a violation of his ordination vows.

The judicial committee met once, for about an hour, and concluded the allegations lacked merit.

The episode serves to illustrate the weaponization of the church judiciary: some of our colleagues are quite litigious and are willing to make accusations of slander against those with whose views they disagree.

Constitutional Clarity

Since its founding, the PCA has subscribed to male-only ordination. Likewise, when the RPCES—after years of financial trouble—was received into the PCA, it brought only male officers. The PCA and the RPCES have consistently rejected the question of women’s ordination.

Over the past three years, the PCA has amended its constitution to strengthen our commitment to male-only ordination. In an age of sophistry and post-modernism, the PCA has been forced to frequently amend its constitution to both prescribe and proscribe so that men cannot argue, “The constitution doesn’t say we can’t…”

This was necessary because a number of Sessions have flouted the clear language of the constitution and gave the titles of ordained office to unordained women and men.

At the 2024 Assembly in Richmond, Virginia the PCA adopted language, which—it was hoped—would put an end to such rebellious activity:

BCO 7-3 …Furthermore, unordained people shall not be referred to as, or given the titles of, the ordained offices of pastor/elder, or deacon.

The BCO was already clear on this point: only men may serve as deacons (BCO 9-3) and all church officers must be ordained (BCO 16-3, 17-1).

But in Richmond, the PCA made it obvious: no one except ordained men may be given the titles of Deacon, Elder, or Pastor in the PCA.

Longing for Latitude

While the Assembly debated in Richmond, a number of our colleagues stood up and pled with the PCA not to pass the amendment to BCO 7-3 because they believed women should be ordained as deacons and their church currently gave the title of deacons to unordained women and men.

The Assembly rejected their arguments. The Assembly’s clarity here meant Sessions could no longer hide behind ambiguity and nuance on this point.

Rather than continue practices that defy the constitution, a number of Sessions have authored overtures to amend the constitution to make allowance for ladies to be called deacons in the PCA.

I am grateful these men had the integrity to follow the constitutional process and submit proposals to change the constitution to make allowance for their innovative views.

Read More