By Jared Nelson | January 10, 2024
For 47 years, a “temporary statement” has introduced the Presbyterian Church in America’s Directory for the Worship of God. This note, affixed by the Third General Assembly, noted the unfinished work of revising the Directory of Public Worship stating: “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]
Today, fifty years after her founding, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has the peculiar distinction of being the only major Presbyterian denomination without a constitutionally binding Directory for Worship. So while the Directory is declared to be part of the Constitution (Preface III) and sessions are instructed in BCO 12-5e to order worship by this document, it nevertheless is said to not “have the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts.” How did this “temporary statement” last for 47 years, and has there been any effort to revisit this “temporary” status?
The History of the Westminster Assembly & Standards
What is a directory of public worship, and why does it matter? The original Westminster Assembly was charged to produce ecclesial documents and guidelines to further reform the Church of England. The most famous of those documents was the revision of the 39 Articles, that eventually became a full-blown rewritten Confession of Faith in use in many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations today, including the Korean American Presbyterian Church, the Korean Presbyterian Church in America (Kosin), the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP), and the PCA.[2] The Assembly also produced the Larger and Shorter Catechisms and many other documents related to church polity, including the original Directory for Public Worship.[3]
Sinclair Ferguson states that “The Directory for Public Worship was intended to produce a more uniform ethos in worship.”[4] Yet, the design of the original Directory of the Public Worship was to replace the Book of Common Prayer that gave exact prayers and forms, whereas the Directory would give principles and elements. While the Directory would give greater liberty, it still acknowledged Scriptural boundaries protecting people from the whims of a minister. As Rowland Ward put it: “the directory, by providing an outline of how worship should be conducted, offers a middle way between a fixed liturgy and leaving a minister entirely to his own devices.”[5] The Directory was drafted in the midst of England’s own “worship wars,” and as Sinclair Ferguson explains, “The final document is in many ways a fine example of compromise on non-essentials set within the context of agreement on essentials.”[6]
Since the time of its publication, Directories for Worship have been the norm within Presbyterian denominations to navigate the often divisive topic of worship in the church. They avoid subjecting a congregation to the slavish prescriptions of a Prayer Book and fixed forms on the one hand, as well as the whims of human innovations and cultural fads on the other. The establishment of a directory rejected uniformity in form, while recognizing essential elements and manners of right worship in Scripture.
The History of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
The widespread Presbyterian norm of using a Directory for Public Worship returns us to the awkward status of the Directory for Worship in the PCA. Some have come to the conclusion that the note in the BCO from the Third General Assembly about the lack of “force of law” is intended as a final word in order to give liberty and allow a wide diversity of worship among the churches of the denomination – even beyond the liberty afforded by the original concept of a Directory rather than a Prayer Book. However, a closer reading of the actions and minutes of the early days of the PCA reveals that the Directory for Public Worship (or just “Directory for Worship” in the PCA) is a section of the Book of Church Order with debated status and its revision and enforcement may be called ‘the great unfinished work of the founding.’
The First General Assembly & the Adoption of the Constitution
In the early days of the denomination, several overtures came from individuals and churches to address, as one overture put it: the “neglected heritage of Reformed Worship.”[7] This overture was said to be answered by the First General Assembly in an afternoon session acting stating in the minutes: “Part III of the Book of Church Order, the Directory for the Worship of God, was adopted as printed” (M1GA, p. 35).[8] The Directory was listed as part of the Constitution in BCO 27-1, which would eventually be moved to “Preface III” of the BCO.
BCO 27-2 (the procedures for changing the constitution we now have in BCO 26), however, was temporarily suspended until the final report of the Constitutional Documents committee at the Second General Assembly (M1GA, p. 35). This meant that the adopted Constitution could be amended by the General Assembly acting alone rather than needing to send constitutional changes through the presbyteries for constitutional changes. Many suggestions for amendments came in and so the new Constitutional Documents committee formed a subcommittee in order to review what changes were suggested to the Book of Church Order (M1GA, pp. 24f). PCA Historian Dr. Frank J. Smith, III claims this “ad interim committee” or in the GA minutes “subcommittee” never formed. However, somebody did the work, and the work was presented by the Constitutional Documents Committee in subsequent General Assemblies.[9]The Committee’s approach to worship could be seen in the answers it gave to several inquiries about pastoral dress and architecture. By the Third General Assembly, the answers given provided advice to dignified dress and buildings, but declined to “legislate in this area” of dress, and stated “the church has no right to legislate regarding architecture” (M3GA, pp. 112f). One can sense the Reformed ethos was to give broad guidelines, but not to legislate beyond Scriptural dictates. One could expect the same approach as that found in the Directory for Worship, as the Directory would mandate a sermon and prayer, but the manner of such would be advice and suggestion as to precise content.
The Second & Third General Assemblies
While the second General Assembly received proposed changes, it was announced these would be dealt with at the third General Assembly (M2GA, p. 61). At the Third General Assembly, the Assembly worked its way through the Directory beginning in what would be chapter 48 (now chapter 47). However, the Special Constitutional Documents committee chairman G. Aiken Taylor explained that for the Directory “to be a lasting and effective document in the best tradition of the Church, a thorough editorial revision should be undertaken to eliminate the patchwork character of the text which is the result of changes and amendments through many years” (M3GA, p. 58). Thus the third General Assembly adopted the committee’s four recommendations (M3GA, p. 11).
In the midst of these affirmative deliberations, it was “moved that a paragraph be added to the Preface of the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America under Part III, ‘The Constitution Defined’ which will define the relative authorities of each part of the constitutional documents (Confession and Catechisms, the Book of Church Order, and the Directory for Worship), and how they are to be used to govern the life of Ministers, Ruling Elders, Deacons and the members at large of the Presbyterian Church in America” (M3GA, p. 74).
In a Thursday afternoon session, while Chapters 48 to 53 were fully adopted, before moving on to chapter 54, the temporary statement was ready to be considered: “The following statement was adopted to be placed at the beginning of the Directory forWorship until a more precise statement can be prepared by the Constitutional Documents Committee. The Constitutional Documents Committee was directed to prepare a statement on the relative authority of the Constitutional documents, which is to be returned to the next Assembly: ‘Temporary Statement 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’ ” (M3GA, p. 82).
The third General Assembly then went on to discuss the final wording of chapter 54 and the subsequent chapters. This ‘temporary statement’ has been in place for 47 years. Later, the same Assembly answered certain overtures asking for a study in Reformed Worship to be answered by their “adoption of the Directory for Worship” (M3GA, p. 111). The Third General Assembly considered then, the Directory to be “fully adopted, and that the suspension of paragraph 27-2 approved by the first General Assembly now be ended” (M3GA, p. 55). Yet, this should not be seen as the end of the matter for the temporary statement. The dockets for subsequent General Assemblies would continually list the Temporary Statement as part of the pending (unfinished) business to be addressed in subsequent Assemblies referred to the Constitutional Documents Committee.
Excursus 1: What were the Rationale and Intentions for the Temporary Statement of the Third General Assembly?
The Assembly did not provide rationale for this action. The “Temporary” nature of this issue would be placed before subsequent General Assemblies in their docket for years to come.
As for the unstated rationale, the reasoning seems more uniform at this point as the Directory was widely seen as needing revision. The 50 year-old Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) BCO version the founders worked from itself was in need of updated language, as the Committee said, to be a functional and obligatory part of the constitution. Thus, at the General Assembly, it seemed from the GA minutes and remembrances, this temporary statement was intended as a short-term stopgap measure as the men worked on revisions. During this ‘temporary’ phase, the Directory would then be seen as a “working document.” Others may have realized the Directory did not reflect their particular church’s practice and were motivated not just by minor changes but making sure their church would not run afoul of the Directory in the BCO. At the time of the Third General Assembly, however, the historical record clearly reflects that the matter was not over as it was charged to the Constitutional Documents Committee, and was to be placed before subsequent General Assemblies to determine.
The Fourth, Fifth, & Sixth General Assemblies
The Committee seems not to have addressed the issue of the Directory and this temporary statement in the fourth General Assembly (at least in any way recorded in the minutes). The fifth General Assembly debated further the offices of ruling elder and teaching elder as one or two offices, seeming to reference the need for this to be settled to having a final revision of the wording of the Directory for Worship relative to their duties (M5GA, p. 239).
Finally, at the sixth General Assembly, the Constitutional Documents committee made recommendations on various tasks entrusted to it. Among their recommendations, they included the finalization of Scriptural proofs to the Confession and Catechisms and a decision against adding a chapter in the Confession on a “theology of missions.” The sixth General Assembly, instead of having the committee finish its proposed work of further revision to the Directory of Worship, dismissed the committee with thanks (M6GA, pp. 108, 245).
Excursus 2 – Why was the Constitutional Documents Committee Dismissed at the Sixth General Assembly?
The Minutes of the Sixth General Assembly do not record a rationale for dismissing the Constitutional Documents Committee with thanks. The committee was rebuffed in certain proposals for future actions such as a chapter on missions to be added to the Confession of Faith. Thus, it may be that the Assembly was losing confidence in the direction of the committee, or that concerns still remained over how it would affect the more contemporary practices of certain churches.[10] This may be the first instance of what Dr. David Coffin said in remembrance was “BCO fatigue.” Taking all of the Directory at once, when many wanted different revisions, was not proceeding in an efficient manner.
Whatever the reasoning, even the dismissal of the Constitutional Documents committee would not be the end of the issue, as subsequent Assemblies would have to deal with the issues of worship which the Directory addresses.
The Seventh through the Eleventh General Assemblies
The very next year in the seventh General Assembly, a pending item was awkwardly on the docket: “Unfinished business, which is left over from the now dismissed Committee on Constitutional Documents” (M7GA, p. 56). It became clear that the Temporary Statement at the Beginning of the Directory for Worship was causing confusion, as a complaint and response fought over the authority of the Directory as a source of guidance on corporate worship (M7GA, pp. 116f). The question was sidestepped with appeals to other parts of the Confession. The status of (then-numbered) Chapters 48 to 63 of the BCO were becoming a source of confusion and disunity rather than the clarity and unity originally hoped for in the first General Assembly, not to mention the goal of a “more uniform ethos in worship” aimed at by the original Westminster Assembly.[11]
At the eighth General Assembly in 1980, having chapters on church membership and sacraments remain in the temporary status of not having the “force of law” was becoming untenable. The General Assembly again dealt with the Directory for Worship as some proposed recommendations to just delete the “temporary statement” adopted at the third General Assembly (M8GA, p. 166). Revisions proposed by the original Constitutional Documents Committee were still never considered, so the debate also suggested a proposal to send three chapters (57-59 then, 56-58 now) to the presbyteries to be approved as “constitutional” (M8GA, p. 118). The same Assembly directed the Judicial Committee to take up the work originally assigned to the now dismissed Constitutional Documents Committee to rewrite/revise the Directory. Subsequently, presbyteries sent recommended revisions to the Directory in all chapters to General Assembly as the status of the Directory, in parts or in the whole, was now an open question once again.
At the ninth General Assembly in 1981, the three chapters on church vows and sacraments (57-59 then, 56-58 now) were “enacted into church law” (M9GA, pp. 137-143).[12] While the note in the BCO credits the 11th General Assembly for making those chapters authoritative, the Minutes of the 11th General Assembly itself in a protest conceded that the three chapters had been “fully constitutional since 1981,” or in other words, since the ninth General Assembly (M11GA, p. 141). The Judicial Commission recommended process against the now-ordained man to be convinced of the Standards. The Judicial Commission, when challenged by a protest on the Directory having a disputed status, replied: “The Directory for Worship is a part of our Constitution, and the Commission understood that we were to judge by the Constitution, not determine which parts of it are authoritative” (M11GA, p. 143).
Excursus 3 – What was the Status of the Directory in the Early Days of the PCA?
It may be worth noting the confusing and non-uniform language in regards to the Directory of Worship at this point in the history of the PCA. How does one speak of and understand the status of the Directory for Worship in the constitution of the PCA at this point? The first General Assembly adopted the Directory. The third General Assembly “fully adopted” the Directory which was already “adopted” by the first General Assembly. The Temporary statement of the sixth General Assembly spoke of “binding” and “force of law” while the eighth General Assembly was now speaking of making parts of the Directory of Worship “constitutional,” even while the BCO already declared it part of the Constitution in BCO 27-1 (now Preface III) and the session in BCO 12-5e is directed to order worship according to the Directory for Worship.
Every year the “temporary statement” was listed as “unfinished business” for the simple fact that the Directory has a confused and ambiguous place in the PCA’s Constitution. When the ninth General Assembly considered this matter, the Clerk’s note highlighted this anomaly: “These chapters have already been approved as a part of the Book of Church Order, but due to the temporary notation at the beginning of the Directory for Worship, the constitutional authority of this portion of the Book of Church Order has been questioned” (M9GA, p. 137).
The first Stated Clerk of the PCA, Morton H. Smith, provided expanded comment on the status of the Directory in his Commentary on the BCO, noting that the Directory was adopted and so a “temporary statement” by one General Assembly would not have the force of law over and against the constitutional elements upon which it comments. As Morton Smith put it in his Commentary on the BCO, “The Presbyterian Church in America has taken the unprecedented action of declaring this portion of its Constitution something less than binding. It is interesting to note that in defining the Constitution of the Church the ‘Directory for Worship’ is explicitly named and included as a constitutional document (see BCO Preface, III). This temporary statement adopted by the Third General Assembly has been viewed as binding, though it is often asserted that one Assembly cannot bind another. The fact is that this section of the Book was adopted in exactly the same way as the rest of the Book.”[13]
Since the Eleventh General Assembly – Finished or Unfinished Business?
While revisions to the Directory continued to be considered in subsequent General Assemblies, Historian Frank J. Smith notes tensions developing over worship in the PCA. The Presbytery of the Ascension, perhaps still smarting over being told to discipline a member on the basis of BCO 58, proposed returning chapters 56-58 to their original status as “an approved guide” but not considered “obligatory” (M13GA, p. 45).[14] This recommendation was approved at the 13th General Assembly, but it failed to receive the needed number of presbytery votes by the 14th Assembly in order to be ratified (M14GA, pp. 96f). Also, worship services at General Assembly itself became a subject of formal protest, as the worship at the 14th General Assembly was specifically referenced as being out of conformity to parts of the Directory of Worship (M14GA, pp. 141f, 178f).[15]
This era saw the Assembly consider competing proposals for revision to the Directory of Worship. Delmarva Presbytery again overtured, in an overture penned by Dr. David Coffin, that the General Assembly take up three chapters a year of the Directory to finish the work (M16GA, p. 59). During the debate, objections were made to the Directory to the effect that in its current form, the Directory gave too much liberty in regards to singing, resulting in a protest mostly against the chapter on congregational singing for allowing instruments and hymns (M16GA, pp. 169f).The controversy over worship, the work of revisions, and considerations of other sections to be made obligatory seemed to have exhausted the Assembly as it was moved, partly in answer to the Delmarva Overture: “That we leave the Directory for Worship in its present status in the Church and dismiss the entire matter” (M16GA, p. 169). Dr. David Coffin suggested this was again a casualty of “BCO fatigue” as this Assembly was particularly busy and that there was great relief when his overture was sidelined.
Stated Clerk Morton Smith went on to comment about this action: “It must be admitted that this leaves the Church in a somewhat awkward position regarding this portion of its Constitution.”[16] The 16th General Assembly may have spoken more hopefully than prophetically in moving to leave the Directory in its present state and dismissing the matter. Worship controversies over General Assembly worship would come up again, with questions over whether the worship at General Assembly was to be considered subject to the restrictions of the Standards, or merely contained worship elements and were not subject to Lord’s Day worship standards.
Eventually, Grace Presbytery would overture the 28th General Assembly simply to “grant Full Constitutional Authority to the Directory of Worship” (M28GA, p. 49). This Overture seemed merely to ask the General Assembly to do so, thus the denial handed down from the Assembly was based less on the merits than on the fact that this would require a 2/3 vote of all the presbyteries (M28GA, pp. 280, 282).
The 46th and 47th General Assemblies Make More of the Directory Binding
In more recent memory, the Directory for Worship became subject of debate as the 46th General Assembly was overtured by Grace Presbytery and Tennessee Valley Presbytery to “Grant BCO 59 Solemnization of Marriage Full Constitutional Status” (M46GA, p. 41). This overture arose in the aftermath of the legalization of so called “same-sex marriage” by the U. S. Supreme Court’s notorious Obergefell decision. The authors of the overtures sought to make clear (and protect) the practice of PCA Teaching Elders with regards to performing marriages.
Old issues of diversity of practice resurfaced, not on the nature of marriage between one man and one woman, but on keeping records in BCO 59-7, what “inclinations” meant in BCO 59-5, relation to the civil government in BCO 59-1, and on parental consent to a marriage in BCO 59-4. But in the end, one section of the chapter in BCO 59-3 was agreed upon and sent to the presbyteries for ratification, which was approved by the subsequent Assembly in 2019.[17] Thus, BCO 59-3 was added to Chapters 56-58 as constitutionally obligatory sections of the Directory for Worship.
Should the Directory Be Controversial Today?
Why has the authority of the Directory for Worship been a source of debate in the PCA? Why does the Directory remain in its unresolved status? Surveying the history reveals issues of misunderstanding, concern over the details of the Directory, and difficulty in how to tackle the Directory.
First, some objections are easily answered as misunderstandings, coming from a lack of familiarity with the purpose and history of the Directory. For instance, a popular narrative circulates that a Directory is not Presbyterian, but the Westminster Divines who wrote the very first one would strenuously disagree. Another is that the Directory in principle is over-mandating what may be done in worship, but its origin as a rejection of prayerbook-mandated forms argues against this objection. Finally, the objection that the Directory would under-mandate worship, and that stricter forms should be given, is rebuffed by the unity found in the PCA on the sacraments chapters, providing a counterpoint to that narrative.
Counter to these misunderstandings, the Directory for Worship principally was instituted as a balanced measure to preserve biblical commands, but to give wide liberty in how those manifested in different cultures and contexts. In the midst of the “worship wars” in seventeenth-century England, the Directory for Public Worship sought to avoid the overprescription of the prayerbook, while still expressing unity on Biblical elements in the midst of diversity allowed for local congregations. Thus, from the Directory of the Westminster Assembly to that of the PCA, much of the Directory for Worship typically gives broad directives with only a few points written with authoritative language. The original PCA Constitutional Documents Committee, in being tasked to revise the Directory, purposefully refused to dictate in the Directory or give answers to inquiries over: clergy dress, the frequency of communion, the exact content of the elements of worship, and it was purposefully silent as to the use or non-use of a liturgical year, only mandating a church weekly calendar of Lord’s Day Worship (M3GA, pp. 112f).
Second, in contrast to some misunderstandings over the nature of the Directory, the history of the PCA has seen more substantive and legitimate objections to the Directory having authoritative status. These concerns lie in the details, questions such as: How authoritative are the directives? Which details need to be changed and updated from the older PCUS language? Are there valid practices currently happening which run afoul of the older Directory? Are we agreed on certain elements such as offering? Are we agreed on who performs those elements such as the reading of Scripture?
If the issue with the Directory is in the details, such could mean future ratification is possible. Deciding on answers or leaving room for diversity combined with some “editorial revision… to eliminate the patchwork character of the text” (M3GA, p. 58), could result in a Directory that can be read with great agreement by most, if not all, PCA elders and congregations as a reflection of biblical practice in worship. Indeed, some measure of unity is already assumed in the polity of the PCA as the Directory in its current form is already affirmed by the PCA as “the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards”[18] and in that it is currently the guide for sessions on how to order worship (BCO 12-5e).
Finally, the history of the PCA Directory for Worship reveals the difficulty of how to complete the unfinished business of the “temporary” status of the Directory’s authority after dismissing the Constitutional Documents Committee. Whether to take a chapter or section at a time (as was done in the 46th General Assembly), or taking a few chapters at a time (as was proposed at the 16th General Assembly), or wholesale adoption (as was also proposed at the 28th General Assembly), or leaving the matter to rest for the moment (as was done temporarily at the third and 16th General Assemblies). If greater unity exists now over worship in the PCA than in the past, the path for expressing that unity is no less fraught.
To Finish or not to Finish?
This brief survey of PCA history reveals why the Directory has remained the unfinished work of the founding of the Church. However, as worship is the grand purpose of the work of the church, efforts at various times to finish that work for the sake of unity and fidelity in worship are certainly to be commended for their motivations, if not for their success.
While diversity on non-essentials and circumstances in worship certainly exist and should exist, unity on essentials of worship should also be a hallmark of any communion, especially a Reformed one. A Directory for Worship has historically been, and currently is the basis for great unity for most Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in recognizing the unity on the essentials among diversity on the non-essentials in worship. If handled rightly, a Directory for Worship in a Reformed communion can be a source of great unity and peace.
As the Directory says of itself in BCO 47-6: “The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter. It may not be forgotten, however, that there is true liberty only where the rules of God’s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God’s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.”[19]
[1] That statement excludes a few sections on the Sacraments and Marriage (56, 57, 58, 59-3).
[2] To read more on the Westminster Assembly see: The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context by Robert Letham, Confessing the Faith by Chad VanDixhoorn, or The Westminster Assembly and Its Work by William Beveridge, as revised and edited by J. Ligon Duncan, III.
[3] See The Westminster Directory of Public Worship, discussed by Mark Dever & Sinclair Ferguson.
[4] See Sinclair Ferguson’s essay in The Westminster Directory of Public Worship, page 26.
[5] Rowland Ward. “Directory of Public Worship” in Scripture and Worship, eds. Richard A Muller and Rowland S. Ward.
[6] Ibid 26
[7] See Minutes of the first General Assembly pages 19-22
[8] Presbyterian Church in America, Minutes of the First General Assembly, Office of the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, Lawrenceville, GA, 1973, p. 35; heretofore, all references to the Minutes will imitate the parenthetical reference above.
[9] Frank J. Smith, III, The History of the Presbyterian Church in America: Silver Anniversary Edition, p. 499
[10] Inquiry into a member of the committee led to the response “Thanks for your questions. I don’t have adequate remembrances to answer any of them.” Such may be the status of many of the memories of those now who witnessed these events in the 1970s.
[11] See Sinclair Ferguson’s essay in “The Westminster Directory of Public Worship” page 26.
[12] See also Smith: History of the PCA: Silver Anniversary Edition. Page 503
[13] Morton Smith. Commentary on the BCO. Page 393
[14] See Frank Smith. History. pp. 504f.
[15] See Frank Smith. History. pp. 507f.
[16] Morton Smith. Commentary on the BCO. Page 393-394
[17] For a more thorough account of the process of constitutionalizing BCO 59-3 see: https://theaquilareport.com/reflections-from-inside-the-overtures-committee-at-the-46th-pca-general-assembly/
[18] Preface to the PCA Directory of Worship
[19] For another narrative on the history of the Directory for Worship consult Frank J. Smith’s “The History of the Presbyterian Church in America: Silver Anniversary edition” Chapter 38, pages 493-519. Obtain a copy at the pcabookstore: https://www.pcabookstore.com/p-723-history-of-the-pca.aspx
Jared Nelson is a PCA Teaching Elder serving as Pastor of New Life Presbyterian Church in Hopewell Township, PA.