Upon their examination for entrance into a PCA presbytery men have the opportunity to state whether or not they take exception to any part of our doctrinal standards (The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Shorter Catechism, the Larger Catechism, and our Book of Church Order). If the man has exceptions the presbytery then votes as to whether or not the position is an exception. Let us assume that it is. Another name for these exceptions is errors. A presbytery that votes a position to be an exception is stating by its majority vote that the TE is in error in that point of his doctrine. Should the individual be allowed to teach that exception in his local ministry?
    An examination of PCA actions at the General Assembly and presbytery level provide a solid answer to this question.

1. Answer to Questions in Personal Resolution 5, Ninth General Assembly, on "Confessional Subscription"

        Fairly early in her history, the PCA has taken very seriously both the matter of the powers of the court of original jurisdiction and the matter of careful consideration being given to exceptions men may take to our Standards. Part of the answer given to Personal Resolution 5 reads:

The approval of any man for office belongs, in the first place, to the court of jurisdiction (BCO 21-5). The Church has always reserved to herself the prerogative of determining what views shall not be in accord with the standards. No officer should presume to have the right of making a self-evaluation regarding the conformity of his view.

Any exception to the constitutional standards may have the potential of striking at the vitals of religion (see BCO 34-5), even one which some may consider to refer to an obscure or very technical point of doctrine. A system of doctrine is made up of constituent parts, so that a variation in one of these parts may logically affect a change in the system as a whole. Any court of jurisdiction should therefore give careful consideration to any exception a man might reveal or take with regard to the constitutional standards before determining that an exception is or is not in conformity to the standards and/or proceeding to receive, ordain, and/or to install him (M10GA, p.103)

This allowance of exceptions, however, does not warrant his teaching or preaching of that matter so as to disturb the peace and purity of the church. The court of jurisdiction must determine in each situation whether such unwarranted actions have occurred (M14GA, p. 126).

        The previously cited answer (#1 above) says that Presbyteries should be carefully considerate in allowing exceptions to our Standards. This one speaks with respect to the right and responsibility of Presbyteries to allow or disallow the teaching of such exceptions, depending upon the determination of a given Presbytery as to whether or not such teaching would serve to disturb the peace and purity of the churches within its bounds.

3. Answer of Eighteenth General Assembly to a Reference from the Stony Point Church Session

        This reference asks whether Presbytery has authority to restrict a Teaching Elder in his teaching and preaching. For our purposes, the germane portion of the answer to this reference states:

…presbyteries do have jurisdiction over TEs and have authority to restrict a minister from preaching views which the presbytery is convinced may be harmful to the spiritual welfare of the churches under its care (BCO 13-9 and 34-5)….(M18GA, p. 205).

        It should be noted that this answer of the General Assembly acknowledges that Presbyteries have authority to restrict the teaching of their member TEs. Further, with the words, "…which the presbytery is convinced may be harmful…," the answer makes clear, contrary to the contention of the complainants, that such restriction need not be imposed only against actual teaching and preaching which have been done in a manner so as to disturb the peace and purity of the Church. Presbytery has authority to restrict any teaching that it deems may have detrimental effect upon the churches under its care.

4. Case 91-4

        In this case, a TE complained against the action of James River Presbytery in the Presbytery’s prohibiting him from preaching and teaching his views on prophecy and tongues. The Complaint was not sustained by the General Assembly in any of its parts. As part of the reasoning for the Complaint being denied, the Standing Judicial Commission expressed (and the Assembly approved) the following:

…The Standing Judicial Commission will not assume to itself the responsibility nor the authority to make a comprehensive doctrinal statement on this subject. However, in past judicial cases approved by the Assembly, the court of original jurisdiction has been recognized to have power to determine whether a particular teaching or preaching is heretical, erroneous, or such as disturbs the peace or purity of the church. It is clear that presbytery has power to limit teaching and preaching accordingly when it makes such a determination (M20GA, p. 162).

And the following:

Presbyteries may exercise such power over the preaching and teaching of its members short of a determination that the forbidden teaching is heresy, without necessarily binding the consciences of the men under its care….We must defer to presbytery, therefore, as the court most able to determine what may be harmful to the spiritual welfare of the churches under its care (M20GA, p. 164).

        These citations from Case 91-4 clearly state that Presbytery has power both to determine what views may be harmful to the welfare of the churches under its care, and to restrict the teaching of those views.

5. Case 92-9a

        This case, in which a Complaint against the action of Eastern Carolina Presbytery having licensed a candidate who, among other alleged deficiencies, held exceptional views on creation and the flood, is quite applicable also. In that case, the complainants asked the Assembly to rule that their Presbytery erred in so licensing the candidate. The Complaint was not sustained. Pertinent to our case are the following citations from the reasoning and opinion of the court:

(b) The Presbytery examined the candidate to see if he maintained the system of doctrine, and found that he did….Moreover, the Presbytery found no additional areas of concern as to his adherence to the system of doctrine, and further guarded the purity of the church by ordering him not to teach publicly on such views, to which [the licentiate] agreed (M22GA, p. 91).

        It should be noted in this opinion, approved by the General Assembly, that Eastern Carolina Presbytery is commended for their taking steps which, "…guarded the purity of the church by ordering him not to teach publicly on such views…." Such commendation is repeated in the following citation from the opinion:

...Judicially, we are not able to find fault with, correct, or advise ECP of a better process, unless we were to originate some definitive ruling ourselves, which ECP did not have to appeal to. Rather we find that this Presbytery, which has a right to judge its own members, proceeded with admirable thoroughness, candor, and scrutiny. Moreover, they attempted to safeguard by prohibiting the Candidate to publicly teach or preach his views on the subject (M22GA, p. 92).

        Finally, in a concurring opinion of case 92-9a, which concurring opinion was likewise approved by the General Assembly, we find the following expressed:

We believe that it would be detrimental to the Church if the SJC were allowed to determine, define, prescribe, or in any way be the authors of the Church’s doctrinal formulations. Let it judge in the areas where the Church has spoken, let it determine whether procedures are consistent with our Constitution, but let it also defer to the courts in those areas where the Church has not yet spoken with clarity and definitiveness (M22GA, p. 94).

6. Case 94-1

        In this case, wherein yet another candidate expressed questionable views on creation and the flood in his examination before Calvary Presbytery, a Complaint was filed which alleged that Presbytery erred in its sustaining of the candidate’s examination. The Complaint further alleged that Presbytery erred by its ruling the Complaint out of order when it came to be heard by Presbytery at its 22 January 1994 Stated Meeting. The Assembly ruled, by approving the judgment of the Standing Judicial Commission in this case, that Calvary Presbytery had erred in its ruling the Complaint out of order, and, consequently not hearing it. Thus, the Complaint was deemed not properly before the SJC, and accordingly was, "…remanded back to the Presbytery to be heard in keeping with BCO 43-2 and 43-10." (M23GA, p. 130).

        Research into the final outcome of that remanded Complaint reveals an instructive pattern for other Presbyteries wherein controversial matters are contended. The summary points which hereafter are cited are drawn from the Minutes of the October 1995 Stated Meeting of Calvary Presbytery.

        At its 22 July 1995 Stated Meeting, Calvary Presbytery adopted a motion to postpone until the October meeting of Presbytery the hearing of the Complaint. Additionally, an Ad Hoc Committee was formed "to facilitate a discussion concerning the matter, and bring a recommendation to the October meeting of Calvary Presbytery." (Appendix 2-B)

        At the October meeting of Calvary Presbytery, the Ad Hoc Committee reported, and presented a proposed resolution, which was adopted by the Presbytery. The proposed resolution may be found in its entirety in the October 1995 Minutes of Calvary Presbytery, Appendix 2-D. Here we cite in part:

WHEREAS: We, the Presbytery of Calvary, affirm that the doctrine of the Confessional standards of the Presbyterian Church in America explicitly assert that the world was created by divine fiat, literally "in the space of six days" (WCF 4.1). Because the Confession’s teaching on creation is unassailably grounded in Scripture, we joyfully proclaim that our preaching and teaching should conform to its content and emphases…..

RESOLVED: We, the Presbytery of Calvary, require that [the candidate] not inculcate any view which contradicts the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in his public preaching and teaching regarding creation. In light of this requirement and [the candidate’s] hearty approval of the foregoing resolutions, we deem it unnecessary to sustain the complaint of Gentry et al versus Calvary Presbytery.

        The Minutes of Calvary Presbytery further reflect that at the passing of the above cited resolution, the complainants withdrew their Complaint.

        The point of our citing this case and its resolution is to indicate that yet again we find an example of a Presbytery restricting the preaching and teaching of one of its members. As a result of this, no Complaint or Dissent was filed in that Presbytery, nor did the General Assembly, through its Committee on Review of Presbytery Minutes, in any way discountenance this action by citing it as an exception.

Conclusion:
      As the above quotations evidence, the PCA has a history of not allowing exceptions to be taught. One may ask, "What if these exceptions are the truth and the doctrinal standards are in error on this point? Is doctrinal truth not stifled?" The answer is, "No". Our system of government provides a healthy method of examination. Any church court, session, presbytery or the General Assembly, can establish a study committee to study the doctrinal controversy. Within this committee there can be a free expression of viewpoints. The committee can then bring a report to the court that appointed it. There the report’s recommendations can be freely discussed. If it is believed our doctrinal standards are in error, corrective amendments can be proposed and, if accepted, sent through the amendment process.

        This is a far different and better method than allowing exceptions to be taught from the pulpit or by other means and then having to deal with resulting controversy.