Philosophical Theology

The impetus for this piece is this statement from the PCA’s Central Florida Presbytery.

Imagine a man resigning his membership in a church in which the resignation was not received by the session due to an investigation. Imagine further that the man was subsequently received into membership of another church. Is the man now out of reach?

Ramifications: 

If the mere act of resignation were sufficient to dissolve ecclesiastical jurisdiction, then any individual deserving of censure could effectively immunize himself against discipline through a timely withdrawal. Similarly, if the mere act of joining a new body nullified the authority of the original session, the process of correction would be nullified. Given these necessary implications that undermine biblical shepherding, it follows that neither mere resignation nor being received into new membership can exempt an individual from God’s means of appointment to reclaim a wayward sheep. Something else is required.

The dilemma: 

How to be catholic and not sectarian is always a challenge. So, how might the knot be cut if it cannot be untied? Before proposing a solution, this statement deserves careful examination:

The term “improper” is ambiguous. If it merely means the independent church violated PCA rules of discipline and purported jurisdiction, such irregularities do not necessarily constitute disruptive or detrimental acts. However, if “improper” means the original church’s actions violated biblical principles, that is a different matter, to which we will turn momentarily.

The claim above does not necessarily stand or fall as a unit. First, a distinction is in order: an “improper” act concerns its legitimacy, whereas “disruptive” and “detrimental” are the consequences of that improper act. Secondly, that the PCA claims jurisdiction is a point of contention and, therefore, cannot be used to establish an improper maneuver in an objective sense or bind a session of an independent church. This is begging the question. Accordingly, although the PCA may deem a censure without ecclesiastical effect, that alone does not make the censure improper, disruptive, or detrimental. A procedural foul by PCA standards doesn’t necessitate actual harm from a non-PCA church. However, if the censure is found to be biblically improper, then it is necessarily disruptive and detrimental, and should be considered without ecclesiastical effect.

A proposed solution that seeks peace and catholicity:

If resignation or receiving into a new body exempts an individual from church censure, the Church abdicates half of the keys of the kingdom. Such a policy implies the ability to remit sins but not to retain them, violating the principles outlined in WCF 30.

Therefore, receiving sessions must objectively evaluate all sides of a matter, rather than relying solely on the testimony of prospective members. At the very least, would it have been wrong for the PCA sessions to have sat down with SAC’s session to get their perspective? If not, then why wouldn’t they have, if in fact they didn’t?

Peace and vindication:

It is crucial to clarify that the receiving sessions did not simply admit these members into membership and to the Lord’s Supper based on their profession of faith without considering the the direct testimony of the original church’s concerns.

If the receiving sessions exercised their pastoral duties through direct correspondence with the original session, and concluded that the first church’s proceedings were biblically deficient, why not state that plainly? Such transparency proves they aren’t merely showing favoritism or prejudice and provides the definitive vindication, if not additional healing, these professing believers are due. Without such clarity, this situation can appear to suggest that these individuals have tactically passed under the jurisdiction of a new governing body. This approach prioritizes procedural technicalities over substantive morality, creating the disruption the PCA aims to avoid. Furthermore, it reinforces the perception that procedural issues inherent to Presbyterianism inevitably extinguish genuine Christian warmth.

Lastly, the notion that a congenial meeting with fellow elders in the Lord would not have changed the outcome misses the point. The purpose of godly conflict is not merely to achieve consensus, but to honor Christ through biblical stewardship and truth-seeking, even when the relationship is tense. Anything less treats the church as our own, rather than Christ’s.*

Closing thoughts:

A public announcement that the receiving sessions have humbly considered and dismissed the direct testimony of the original church need not be accompanied by any details of the concerns. A simple statement should suffice: “We have prayerfully considered the direct testimony of SAC and have reached an impasse. We believe it is best to move forward without disclosing further details of these discussions.” Falling short of such catholicity invites justifiable suspicion.**

* This letter from the same presbytery to the elders at SAC shows forth sincerity and warmth of catholic congeniality. It closes with: “Please be assured of our prayers for the elders, the pastors, the diaconate, the congregation at large, and all who labor among you in the name of our Savior.”


** Many are reasoning thusly: since SAC left the PCA to avoid her courts, the elders have relinquished their jurisdiction over members who found refuge in the PCA. This line of reasoning warrants brief consideration. 

Non Sequitur: Even if the SAC left the PCA to avoid discipline of its pastor, it does not follow with necessity that SAC relinquished authority over members who may have tried to escape discipline. SAC might be behaving hypocritically, but whether we like it or not, that doesn’t overturn the communion’s standing as a true church, which comes with the responsibility and authority to censure its members.

Ad Hominem: Instead of addressing (without a fallacious appeal the the PCA’s BCO) whether the SAC has the ecclesiastical authority to act, the argument above attacks the motives and hypocrisy of the SAC ("to avoid her courts").

Suppressed Evidence: The argument above overlooks the mutual covenantal vows SAC may still have with its departed members, regardless of where those members currently attend church.

To put it plainly: the real question isn't SAC's supposed guilt, but whether the receiving sessions properly engaged them when making their determination. If they failed to do so, the receiving sessions, and now the Central Florida Presbytery, are disrupting the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace through their disrespectful proceedings. Yet if the sessions did labor directly with SAC as opposed to relying strictly on the testimony of prospective members, why would the relevant PCA courts hide that? Why not state the truth clearly and in a spirit of gracious humility? Would the Head of the church object to such truth spoken in love?