Presbyterian Polity

By Brad Isbell | December 11, 2023

Thesis: No confessional presbyterian church will long remain confessional or Presbyterian if it loses Reformed worship.

First, some definitions:

• Confessional: orthodox soteriology and doctrine (doctrine of God, Christology, covenant) according to the Reformed confessions
• Presbyterian: government by ordained male (per scripture) elders organized in accountable, graded courts
• Reformed worship: scripturally regulated (RPW), simple, ordinary means of grace worship—a Reformed bucket to carry Reformed water. (See Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 21)

Why will unscriptural, man-centered, culturally conditioned, over-contextualized worship undermine confessional orthodoxy? Because worship by its very form (which ought to be according to spirit—uppercase and lowercase— and truth) communicates certain things about the nature of God and man, theology proper and anthropology can’t help but be warped by unbiblical worship. Theology proper and biblical anthropology are the foundations of soteriology, which will also be warped by unbiblical (e.g.: revivalist or sacerdotal) worship.

Why will unscriptural, man-centered, culturally conditioned, over-contextualized worship undermine biblical, presbyterian church government? Because free-form, optional, variable worship forms suggest free-form, optional, variable ecclesial forms…or little form at all. And when worship is no longer led by ordained elders, government by ordained elders seems less plausible. Presbyterian order is not hierarchical, but neither is it excessively horizontal. Rolling it out too thin leads to its disintegration.

The regulative principle of worship suggests and bolsters a regulative principle of everything for the church. Doctrine, order, and doxology are a three-legged stool. When present and sturdy, these legs will bear great weight; when any are missing or compromised, collapse is imminent.

Calvin would seem to agree with this thesis according to his famous statement about worship and soteriology in “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” (admittedly written before the presbyterian government was fully developed):

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the sacraments and the government of the church, which, as they were instituted for the preservation of these branches of doctrine, ought not to be employed for any other purpose; and, indeed, the only means of ascertaining whether they are administered purely and in due form, or otherwise, is to bring them to this test. If anyone is desirous of a clearer and more familiar illustration, I would say, that rule in the church, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, & points out the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively & active, and, in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcass.

As to what I have yet said, there is no controversy among the pious, or among men of right and sane mind.

Ultimately, worship is just more important than we often assume it to be. Calvin was right to place it (at least in Necessity) before doctrine/soteriology.

Calvin knew that reforming worship wasn’t easy or ever would be. Semper reformanda is not a license for innovation but implies that we always have to claw back what carnality tears away from the church:

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere “will worship” (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

For three centuries or more there was little debate about how to worship among the presbyterian and Reformed heirs of Calvin. The revivalism of the 18th and 19th centuries certainly had its effect on presbyterians in the United States, but Scottish heritage strengthened their spines, kept them sober, and shored them up. Maybe the consensus on how to worship was eventually undermined by different understandings of how important a place worship had in the life of the church. Revivalism made Lord’s Day worship one of several things the church does—possibly still the most important thing, but one thing among many important things. Revivalism was sensitive to context (often the frontier), and modern contextualization is arguably just a species of revivalistic methodology. Revivalism means new measures and those measures are often new types of worship. Maybe some means just seem too ordinary for the extraordinary exigencies of the 20th and 21st centuries. 

Modern presbyterians—even those most-modern, with-it PCA presbyterians) have never quite resolved the Old School-New School controversy of the 19th century. If this is so, the recent kerfuffle over a seemingly innocuous overture makes more sense.

Overture 3 from Pee Dee Presbytery (named after a river as are many presbyteries) would make constitutional another chapter of the PCA’s Directory for Worship. Currently, only the chapters concerning the administration of and admission to the sacraments (plus one small section of the chapter on marriage) have constitutional authority. Chapter 53 concerns preaching and seems fairly innocuous and non-controversial. The only proposed change to the chapter (apart from its status) is to make very clear what other parts of the BCO also state or imply—that only men ought to preach. The PCA is unified on the question of male ordination (at least for the office of elder) and is also agreed (we thought!) that preaching is to be done by trained and qualified men who are or will be ordained. So why the online controversy and pushback by some PCA elders when this overture was posted? 

I believe the reason for opposition to this modest proposal can be explained with two concepts: attitude and latitude. Attitude (or to use a trendy concept, mood) is extremely important to some in the PCA. To more explicitly outlaw the preaching of God’s word by females seems to strike some as, well, not nice. Or too direct. Or needlessly confrontational. Some who would not want to normalize or promote preaching by females still seem to consider this proposal to be bad form or unhelpful for their contexts. 

Maybe it’s about attitude or maybe it’s about latitude. Attempts to tighten up, enforce, or narrow certain aspects of our church order simply seem to rub some of our brothers the wrong way. One pastor even recently lamented the prospect of “strict polity” in the PCA. As I have written before, it almost seems that the slight latitude afforded by so-called Good Faith Subscription (where a presbytery may grant teaching elders “minor” exceptions to the doctrine of the Westminster Standards) has created expectations that the Book of Church Order need not be followed to the letter either. The problem is that there is no mechanism for opting out of the PCA’s standards of polity.  And PCA ordination vows seem to require agreement with our polity. 

It may be time to ask if our attitude towards latitude needs a reset. Worship is not just a mood or a vibe. Several important aspects of our public worship (what, how, and who) are prescribed by our Book of Church Order. Making even clearer what the book says about preaching,  the most important part of worship, seems like a really good idea in 2023 and one that should not be controversial in a confessional, bible-believing church.

Full text of The Necessity of Reforming the Church
Full text of the PCA BCO

Brad Isbell is a PCA Ruling Elder serving on the session of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, TN.