Pick a year.  Choose 1517, or 1559, 1607, 1638, 1647, 1680, 1706, 1729, 1775, or almost any time in the last two centuries.

Whatever the date, it’s likely to be an important one to the history of the Presbyterian Church in America.  While the PCA is young—as the ages of denominations are reckoned—the roots of the family tree run deep.  They reach back into the richest periods of Christian history. 

Spiritual ancestors in Geneva and Paris, Leyden and London, Edinburgh and Heidelberg are remembered with appreciation by members of the PCA.  Heroes of the Reformation in the British Isles and on the Continent are the heroes of the PCA.  Those who pioneered Presbyterianism in the new land of America stand tall in the denomination’s background.  So do those who have stood up to be counted for Christ and the Reformed faith in the last half century.

Even though due recognition is given to the martyrs and saints of earlier generations, the PCA is also appreciative of more recent contributors.  The denomination has a strong conviction that the church is an organism—a living organism—and not just an organization.  Its history continues to be made as its members worship, witness, and work together.  Some who are active in the denomination today can trace their “Presbyterian blue” bloodlines back to the “worthies” of the Scottish Reformation.  Others, no less devoted to the doctrine and outreach of the church, have ancestral connections in lands that knew little or nothing of Christ, much less of Luther, Calvin, or Knox.

The diverse elements that helped to form the PCA as a denomination began to take shape as far back as 40 years ago.  Most of the principals were members of the (“Southern”) Presbyterian Church in the United States.  They saw some unsettling signs in that denomination’s approaches to education and missions, but they were not convinced then that the church was either apostate or unredeemable.  An independent periodical, The Presbyterian Journal, was started in 1942 to encourage the faithful and to alert them to the difficulties.  It became the rallying point for those who saw the major problem as the proposed merger of the PCUS and the (then) Presbyterian Church USA.  Journal board members led the successful fight to defeat the union in 1954-55.

Even though the conservative forces prevented the entry of the PCUS into the larger and much more liberal “Northern” church, they were unable to stop the liberal trends within PCUS.  Here and there, in a congregation or a presbytery, a skirmish was won, but more often the Reformed and evangelical forces lost.  Increasingly, conservative representation on denominational boards was only token representation.

One of the areas of declining emphasis was evangelism.  To try to supply the need, conservatives started another independent organization, the Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship.  To try to motivate laymen to work for constructive change in the PCUS, Concerned Presbyterians was organized.  A parallel ministerial group, Presbyterian Churchmen United, was started.

The combined efforts of the four bodies brought the issues to the attention of thousands of Southern Presbyterians.  People of similar convictions were put in touch with each other at all levels of church government.  They worked together in presbyteries to get the calls of evangelical ministers approved.  They tried to get conservatives elected to institutional boards at synod meetings, and they formed coalitions to head off constitutional amendments at the general assembly.  Seldom did they win.  Many times the conservatives got together just in time to commiserate over a lost cause.  By the end of the difficult decade of the Sixties there was a growing consensus that liberals not only held firm control of denominational  machinery but also that they were ready and willing to throw over—officially—Presbyterian faith and order.

Representatives of the four organizations stepped up their schedule of meetings for prayer and discussion.  Many of the people in the movement were considering leaving PCUS, but some of the elder statesmen still believed that the denomination could be “turned around.”  Advice and counsel were sought from many quarters, including from leaders in the Reformed Presbyterian Church—Evangelical Synod and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Events at the 1971 PCUS general assembly were considered to be particularly disastrous and calculated to be a slap in the face of the conservative cause.  By August of that year the four independent evangelical organizations decided (with some notable abstentions in the board votes) to announce formation of a joint committee to plan the establishment of a continuing church.  The four independent bodies had been criticized often before, but all of that paled before the kind of criticism heaped on them after publication of their joint announcement.  People identified with the continuing church movement were called separatists, schismatics, and worse.  Despite the attacks and despite loss of support by some of the organizations, the work went ahead.  Speakers were sent to all parts of the church to explain the need for a denomination “true to the Scriptures, the Reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.”  The representatives usually were able to make positive presentations of the cause, but they were sometimes pulled into debates with critics.  A book, How Is The Gold Become Dim, was published to document the decline of PCUS and the necessity for separation.

Important groundwork was laid through the months of 1972.  Early in 1973 the planners got encouragement—and a warning—from a friend of international stature who had been through the pain of separation.  Francis A. Schaeffer of L’Abri, in a major address in Atlanta spoke of the necessity of presenting a good witness before the watching world.  This, the RPCES minister cautioned, included maintaining communications with brethren who would not be ready to separate immediately.  The advice was to prove helpful as it was heeded in the months and years to come.

A May 1973 “convocation of sessions” gave a good indication of the number of churches that would be formally joining the continuing church.  Three months later an “advisory convention” in Asheville, North Carolina, began to determine the shape of the new body.  It called for a First General Assembly, which was convened in Birmingham, Alabama, December 4.  The denomination was launched officially at the assembly with a communicant membership of 41,000 members in 260 congregations.

“In much prayer and with great sorrow and mourning we have concluded that to practice the principle of purity in the church visible, we must pay the price of separation,” the assembly declared in a “message to all churches of Jesus Christ throughout the world” issued on the last day of the meeting, December 7, 1973.  The document, after reaffirming adherence to the Westminster standards, noted “our duty to seek fellowship and unity with all who profess this faith.”  Also, it stated, “We particularly wish to labor with other Christians committed to this theology.”

Another section of the letter expressed the “desire to pursue peace and charity with love towards fellow Christians throughout the world” and then extended an invitation “into ecclesiastical fellowship (to) all who maintain our principles of faith and order.”

Preliminary work had been done before the first assembly, but when it adjourned the people charged with running the denominational program now had official reins in their hands for the first time.  Congregations which had previously refused to support denominational programs now had a denominational program of their own making.  Support patterns were not changed overnight, however.

The four committees which had been set up to carry out assembly policies between the annual meetings of the court selected initial staff members and opened offices.  They were supported by no tax.  As they began to send out church planters at home and abroad and to assist the congregations with their work, the churches began to channel their benevolence contributions to them.

Closer to home, presbyteries were also being established with their own work and their budgets.  These also required resources from the member congregations.  Giving patterns did change, and in the first full statistical reporting year (1974) the members of PCA gave $3.8 million to benevolences (all causes beyond the local church), with $908,334 of that going to assembly causes.  By the end of 1981 membership had more than doubled, and benevolence giving was up to $15 million, with $3.8 million sent to assembly agencies. 

While PCUS had always restricted itself to the traditional territory of the Old Confederacy, efforts to restrict the PCA to the geographical area were resisted from the beginning.  The first choice of a name for the new denomination, in fact, was “National Presbyterian Church.”  That name was given up under threat of a suit by an entity of the United Presbyterian Church USA, and the Second General Assembly chose the current name.

Despite loss of the word “national,” the denomination went ahead with its determination to serve the whole country and not to be restricted to a region.  A presbytery was created in Western Pennsylvania, and another was formed on the Pacific coast.  Organizing pastors were sent to Hawaii, Arizona, New York, and Massachusetts. 

While many of the new congregations started “from scratch,” mostly with new coverts, churches also transferred from other denominations every year.  Among the historic congregations in the North joining the PCA were the Fairfield Church (founded 1680) of Fairfield, NJ, and the Faggs Manor Church (founded 1730) of Cochranville, PA.  In the South, some of the well-known congregations which came into PCA after it was organized were First Church of Augusta, GA (site of the PCUS First General Assembly in 1861), Coral Ridge Church of Ft. Lauderdale, FL (where the Evangelism Explosion program developed), and Lookout Mountain Church (neighbor of Covenant College).

As the church grew, it simultaneously gained attention by its work overseas.  It is believed to be the first denomination in modern times to put more than 175 missionaries on foreign fields within its first nine years.  It was not only the numbers that put the PCA in the spotlight, however.  An innovative plan of cooperative work with other evangelical agencies provided a way for the PCA to send people to support (and not to compete with) existing work.  Pilots, nurses, translators, and other  specialized personnel have been stationed around the globe, free to practice and propagate their own Presbyterian beliefs but working in interdenominational teams to expand the frontiers of missions.  In addition, the church planting teams, made up primarily of ordained PCA missionaries, have targeted responsive urban areas in six nations.

Another new way of doing things (but with historical precedent) in the PCA is its program for ministerial preparation.  The general assembly has reminded presbyteries that they have a responsibility which cannot be turned over to seminaries entirely.  A minimum theological education plan has been approved by the assembly, but each presbytery is expected to add to that minimum in the plan it provides for its ministerial candidates.  In addition, the presbyteries must provide for a year’s internship under experienced pastors before ordination.  Ordinarily this year follows completion of a three year seminary course (and is thus called the “three plus one” plan).  Presbyteries have the option of offering a “two plus two” program (two years in an institutional setting and two years of supervised tutorial work under presbytery-approved pastors.

Education for the whole family has also been a concern of the PCA from the beginning.  To provide literature true to the church’s doctrinal standards the denomination entered into a partnership with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to operate Great Commission Publications.  GCP provides curriculum materials from the kindergarten level up through a series of adult electives.  In addition to Sunday school studies, it also produces Vacation Bible School curriculum, the Trinity Hymnal, and other helps for the church education program.

To emphasize its concern for adult education, the PCA’s own staff has also produced a through-the-Bible course which provides the “man in the pew” a guide for systematic study of the whole counsel of God.  Topical study guides for adults and young people have also been published, and an annual Bible study is produced for the Women in the Church organization.

To express its convictions about the importance of higher education for its young people, the assembly in 1978 entered into a plan leading to joint governance of Covenant College with the RPCES.  To serve many of the sons and daughters of the church who enroll in secular colleges, some of the PCA presbyteries have supported full-time campus ministers.  Recently this student work has begun on new campuses with assembly seed money and encouragement.

History continues to be made in the PCA as new believers add their witness every day.  With the joining of the Reformed Presbyterian Church—Evangelical Synod the denomination’s history will be further enhanced, in terms of both the rich background brought into the PCA by RPCES and in the contributions which the new members will make to the enlarged church in the future.  Additional details on various aspects of the PCA’s ongoing history will be found throughout this magazine.

 Grass grows greener, the old adage says, over on the other side.  Champions of the PCA’s “grass roots” philosophy of church government believe it is greener on this side of the ecclesiastical fence.  Their explanation is that the denomination flourishes as rank and file members participate in the governing process. 

Nowhere in the PCA constitution does the term “grass roots” appear.  Polity experts have no neat definition for it.  Nevertheless, it is an important factor in denominational life.

It all boils down to keeping the government of the church close to the people of the church.

The PCA system is not radically different from those of other Presbyterian denominations.  It is, like the others, based on the biblical principles which John Calvin advised the Reformed Church in France to adopt in 1559.  It came to America by way of the Church of Scotland, where John Knox had helped the “elders of the kirk” to wield a spiritual authority that the bishops never had.

Even though Presbyterian still means government by elders (“presbyters”) for the PCA, there is a discernible difference in the way the denomination’s affairs are managed.  The polity is certainly representative, and not an episcopal or congregational form.  The time-honored system of graded courts continues (session, presbytery, and general assembly).

Rank and file members may notice no difference at all.  At the level of the congregation there will be little to notice.  Elders, elected by the people to govern as a session, remain with the same responsibilities.

As those shepherds of the local flock are involved in the work of the larger church, the differences become noticeable.  The representatives of the session will have more opportunities to take part in the decision-making processes in the PCA than in most other denominations.

At the presbytery level, for instance, every church is represented by a ruling elder, no matter how small the membership.  If it has more than 350 communicants the representation increases (an additional elder for every additional 500 members or fraction thereof).  In addition, presbyteries with a large number of ministers enrolled must afford additional representation by ruling elders to balance the teaching elder component.  The Book of Church Order (section 13-1) provides: “When a presbytery has 50 percent more teaching elders on its roll than the number of churches on its roll, each church may be represented by two ruling elders for the first 350 communing members or fraction thereof.”

The provision for representation at presbytery is just one example of the many checks and balances which have been worked into the PCA system.  In this instance, the framers of the constitutional documents wanted to make sure that the lay representation would never be overwhelmed numerically by the clergy participants.

Parity is an important principle in PCA government.  Ruling elders have the same privileges of voice and vote in church courts that teaching elders have.  In the government of the denomination they have equal authority.  Parity has never been defined officially in terms of numerical equality, however.

In various ways, though, the PCA has sought to keep a balance between clergy and lay leadership.  A ruling elder was moderator of the first assembly, for instance.  Every other year since then the moderator has been a layman.  Major committees of the assembly are composed of equal numbers of ruling and teaching elders.  The first assembly said that the business administrator of the denomination (coordinator of the Committee on Administration) should be “preferably not a teaching elder.”

The “grass roots” concept is perhaps most noticeable in the matter of the makeup of the annual meetings of the general assembly.  Unlike in many Presbyterian and Reformed bodies, the PCA assembly includes all the ministers on the rolls of all the presbyteries and representatives from all the sessions.  Depending on their size, larger churches can be represented by up to five ruling elders.  Presbytery has no say in who goes to the assembly.

This formula means that the assemblies can be very large gatherings.  Even before “joining and receiving,” the number of eligible participants was more than 1,300.  The number enrolled for any particular meeting of the court has never exceeded 700, however.  As the denomination has grown there have been calls to change the basis of representation, but none has been heeded so far.

Cost of the meeting has been cited as one reason for cutting down on its size.  Another argument has been the difficulty of decision making by such a large body.  There have also been suggestions that the system would be more truly Presbyterian if the commissioners (a term preferred over “delegates”) were elected by the next court in the graded system.

The elusive “grass roots” concept has been cited most recently, however, by advocates of change.  They point out that the proportion of ruling elders who actually attend is dwindling while the proportion of teaching elders is growing.  A delegated assembly (with each presbytery sending equal numbers of ruling and teaching elders) would assure a healthier balance.  On the other side, opponents of a new formula argue that the “grass roots” are assured better representation under current rules.  The 1982 assembly was scheduled to consider several suggested changes in the representation formula.

In addition to the makeup of the assembly itself, there are many other checks and balances in the PCA to try to keep the denomination close to its people.  The nominating process for electing members of assembly committees is a case in point.  A nominating committee for the assembly is named, not by the assembly, but by the presbyteries.  Each of the regional bodies elects one member to the assembly panel.  They serve two-year terms so that there is some continuity.

This nominating committee is also subject to severe checks and balances.  It cannot go out and seek nominees throughout the denomination.  It can only consider for a vacancy on the Mission to the World committee, for instance, the names proposed for MTW by the presbyteries.  If Presbytery Z sends the name of Mr. A, a training officer for a multi-national corporation with wide experience overseas, as a candidate for the Committee for Christian Education and Publications, then he cannot be nominated for MTW.  While some members of the assembly nominating body may consider him more needed and more qualified for MTW, they may not nominate him for any office other than the one for which his own presbytery suggested him.

While this restriction may seem severe, it assures that the people who know the man best (those in his own presbytery) have some say about his suitability for an assembly responsibility.  The system thus puts considerable initiative—and responsibility—on the “grass roots.”

The check is not without its own balance.  At the assembly there remains the possibility of nominating candidates to run against those proposed by the nominating committee.  Commissioners may submit the names of qualified persons in opposition to those on the ballot, and the assembly makes the final choices.

While no precise formula is established, the Book of Church Order also suggests that the denominational committees are “to include proportionate representation of all presbyteries, wherever possible.”  This provision also reflects the concern that the “grass roots” be involved, with no concentration of power in one area.

Another attempt at keeping a hierarchy from building up is the limitation on terms of assembly committee members.  Here’s how the Book of Church Order puts it: “Persons who have served a full term, or for a least two years of a partial term, on one of the assembly’s permanent committees or permanent sub-committees, shall not be eligible for re-election to an assembly committee until one year has elapsed.”

In addition to this enforced year between terms, there is also a prohibition against service on more than one assembly agency.  Moreover, employees of the denomination are not eligible to be elected to a committee “which administers matters directly related to their area of employment.”

The “grass roots” also have a check on the denominational program by the budgeting system.  The assembly does not appropriate funds from any treasury, but the budgets that it approves for the agencies are seen as spending limits.  To the degree that the churches support those programs they show their approval.

Perhaps the final check on the whole system is the freedom that congregations enjoy under the Book of Church Order (a provision picked up at the beginning of the PCA from the RPCES).  The assembly and its subordinate courts are prohibited from claiming the property of congregations.  Furthermore, says the constitution.  “Particular churches need remain in association with any court of this body only so long as they themselves so desire.  The relationship is voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever.  A particular church may withdraw from any court of this body at any time for reasons which seem to it sufficient.”

The control is at the “grass roots!”