By Michael Khandjian | January 16, 2024
Please note that the Editorial Board of Presbyterian Polity does not necessarily endorse all views expressed on the blog of this site, but the editors are pleased to present well-crafted position papers on issues facing Presbyterian churches and denominations. What follows is one such paper for our readers’ consideration. The author wrote this in response to TE Jared Nelson’s recent blog post, The Unfinished Business of the PCA: The Directory for Public Worship. The author originally posted the following in a word document made available on social media, and he has graciously agreed to make it readily accessible here on the Presbyterian Polity blog as a counter-point. ~ The Editors
In 2010, I was asked to spearhead the church planting network of another denomination – in Florida. Being a native, it was appealing, but early on, Katherine and I knew that we would remain in the PCA, not only because we love our denomination, but also because the denomination that asked us to consider this, ordains women – and we knew that in good conscience we couldn’t do this.
Our convictions remain unchanged.
I offer this because at times arguments for things like a Directory for Worship, or sanctions against women reading and praying in worship, as implied or stated (such as in Overture 3), are framed to come across as stands for orthodoxy, against a creeping liberalism (the new catch word is, ‘progressivism’) in the Church.
This could not be further from the truth, and I want to address this.
Jared Nelson, a good and gracious brother (I know this from experience), wrote on why we may want to reconsider removing the many-years temporary nature of a proposed Directory for Worship, to codify it. Respectfully, I want to argue why I think this would be catastrophic for the PCA, and then speak beyond the scope of his well-written piece, to our hearts.
Nelson refers to the PCA’s not having codified the Directory for Worship as “… the great unfinished work” – Actually, I agree. But, we have to ask ourselves, why this hasn’t been done – in 50-years! I would argue that those who have gone before us wisely knew that this would produce a civil war within the PCA like it has never known. It would divide the PCA. Regardless of which side would ‘win,’ is it worth losing half the denomination? Wouldn’t that make the PCA a different entity?
As it stands, there is great variety and latitude in worship within our denomination. Some churches demand that only ordained men can speak in worship, while women can sing and maybe testify. Some churches, like ours, allow for women to pray and read scriptures. Some are so restrictive as to not allow women to even welcome people in worship on Sunday mornings. Others allow this. Personally, I have dear friends on both sides of the issue, and would fight for all of them, as being faithful servants who are faithful to their convictions.
There are churches in communities that have seen many come to Christ with every expression that is currently allowable within the boundaries of our denominational latitude – in worship. Do we really want to tell these congregations that they have to explain to their people that they can no longer do so?
In his closing words, Nelson states, “If handled rightly, a Directory for Worship in a Reformed communion can be a great source of unity and peace.” This would likely only be the case if many of our churches left the denomination, on either side of the issue. And it would neither be healthy, nor a good testimony to Christ. It would produce schism. It would perpetuate division. It would confuse Members. It would once again demonstrate before a watching world that we are more comfortable with conflict than unity. It would diminish us and our denomination. Because the fact is that while I may strongly disagree with how a church may worship in Greenville, I need that church to be in a denomination that I am part of, where ours can worship with all the same convictions, but in different expressions, in Greater Baltimore. We need one another far more than we tend to realize or admit!
Many of us have ministered and worshipped outside the US, in countries where the styles of worship are very different, yet where God’s Word is preached, taught – revered. When have any come home to say, ‘We need to change how that church worships in Zimbabwe!’ We don’t, because in those churches, by God’s grace and through His Spirit, we meet Jesus afresh – and rather than criticize, we celebrate – and we should.
We should here, too. We should celebrate that church whose worship is highly liturgical, and that church that weaves the Confession throughout its service, and that church that uses modern worship music, as well as the historic, the churches where men wear suits, and the women dresses, as well as the ones where there are as many short pants flip-flops, as there are long.
The question should always be this: Is the prevailing breeze that blows through a church community, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and is God’s Word preeminent?
If desiring a Directory for Worship is for the sake of narrowing the margins of allowability for worship in the PCA, then, in my opinion, it is borne of a misinformed view of purity, and not the gospel. To take 50-years of an organization’s (PCA) ability to allow for peaceful coexistence within an acceptable latitude, and attempt to erase that latitude, is to signal the end of the denomination as we know it.
And, while I don’t know and won’t judge the motives of individuals, these efforts, and statements that Nelson, in his paper, and others make, such as “Are we agreed on those elements such as the reading of Scripture?” and Overture 3, sometimes come across as veiled signals, not to codify what we already allow, but to eliminate half of it – and that would be a sad mistake, in my opinion.
And frankly, if it is the case that brothers believe that certain practices to be sin (and by the way, Nelson did not say or imply this in his paper, but it is implicit in Overture 3) for worship to include elements such as women reading scripture or praying, then it is disingenuous to press for a change in our polity, rather than to press charges. If there are such concerns, then charges should be made, and trials should take place. This too, would be very sad.
The only peaceful – and I would argue, righteous – alternative, is to say that we have many convictions and expressions within the range of allowability in the PCA. If it is your conviction that a woman can’t read in church, then it would be sin for you to allow this. But if you believe that it is sin for any to allow it, then changing our constitution is not the way to deal with your objection. Following our Book of Church Order’s Rules for Discipline, is.
But, if they don’t believe it to be sin, then what is the point? Why put the denomination through a protracted process over a preference? What exactly is the problem?
All of us have liberal brothers who have been unhappy with the conservative nature of the PCA. Most have left – and that is a good thing – for them and for us! For those who won’t stop until women are ordained, they never do – and haven’t – They leave. Recently a church that allowed a woman to preach in South Florida was disciplined – and it left the PCA. Our process really does work!
The same is true of our ultra Conservative friends. In fact, this is true of Dr. Frank J. Smith III, who on two or three occasions in his paper, Nelson cites. However, due to his views, he is no longer in the PCA. Frank is a friend. We remain in touch, and we know that we disagree on a lot of things. I keep up with his wife’s ministry. But, we aren’t the church Frank desires – so rightly, he too left.
Whatever the case may be, whether Ultra-Conservative or Liberal, departure in a denomination is as healthy as a forest that seasonally burns and produces new life, and our identity as a denomination has been protected. God bless those who have left, and those who have remained! We should honor them for living by their convictions.
The implication that we are moving towards liberalism is a fear tactic with no basis in truth, and that hasn’t stood the test of time – not years, but decades, not part of our church’s existence, but all of it! The implication doesn’t represent the hearts of those implicated. Some of us have been in the denomination for decades – and our convictions have never changed! Our examiners were not one-offs, but Founders!
Somewhere in the 1980’s, when our only option for publicity was papers and brochures, the PCA put out a bifold entitled, The Presbyterian Church in America is… Two paragraphs in this piece sat under the heading, A Progressive Denomination. Here is what those paragraphs say:
We sincerely desire to spread the Gospel to every land, to make disciples and teach them the faith once for all delivered by God to His Church. And we happily serve men in need, resisting man’s inhumanity to man, working for peace, honor, and dignity among all men without discrimination.
We are ‘conservative,’ but we’re not old-fashioned! We hold to the faith of the Bible and our fathers, but we strive to proclaim God’s Truth as imaginatively and creatively as possible.
At the time this was distributed, most of our Founders were living, Founders who leaned towards more restrictive, and Founders who leaned less so, in terms of worship. All were committed to Reformed worship. More than this, they were friends who understood the power of a diverse community committed to a unified vision in a denomination.
You see, this is not about friends and enemies, Christians and non-Christians – or it shouldn’t be. It is about brothers in Christ, who share fellowship and vision in a denomination that for 50-years has allowed a wide berth of expression, while maintaining solidly held standards when it comes to its stand on the Faith and our practice of it.
And the vision? That the world may know Jesus Christ.
Gordon Reed. Frank Barker. Jack Williamson. James Montgomery Boice. Rick Perrin. Kenneth Keyes. Harry Reeder. Tim Keller. Mark Lowrey. R.C. Sproul. Morton Smith. I could go on and on – These men were all over the map in what they believed worship should look like, yet all remained unified as brothers in the PCA. We can too! And we should. Part of the strength of our unity is our vast diversity.
Nelson’s opening statement addresses the concern that such a directory, according to historic sources, protects against “the whims of a minister” and “leaving ministry to his own devices” – I would argue that by God’s grace, for the PCA, it isn’t a directory that protects each congregation from the “whims of a minister,” but system of government, a polity, we all subject ourselves to – and a trust that we share in our vows and convictions. Let’s face it, any form or boundary can be exploited, so ultimately, along with God’s protective grace, by His Spirit, we operate on trust and the character of the leaderships of our churches. For 50-years this trust has served the PCA well. Praise God for His Abundant Goodness!
Brothers, let’s stop fighting over this! We have a big mission, a bigger God, and a wondrous Savior! He has sent His Spirit to empower the Church for so much more! We have so much work before us! So many lost sheep, so many hurting families, so many broken people.
Why on earth would we be so concerned with this at the expense of our calling, our unity, and our denominational story?
To God be the Glory!
Michael Khandjian is a PCA Teaching Elder serving as Pastor of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church in Marriottsville, MD.