Every year, elders from around the country and Canada gather to review the minutes of the 87 presbyteries that compose the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Due to the lengthy nature of their work, the meeting occurs weeks prior to the Assembly. This week, the committee met for approximately 25 hours over two days. This doesn’t include the work they conducted before arrival.
Every presbytery has the right to send one representative to serve on the committee for the Review of Presbytery Records (RPR). This year, 65 presbyteries were represented at RPR. The committee is tasked with reviewing the minutes of every presbytery meeting that took place in 2025 as well as any responses from presbyteries for issues cited in their previous years’ minutes.
The committee’s work begins before they arrive for the meeting. Every presbytery’s minutes are examined in advance by a team of at least three elders. Each team produces a report, which is then considered by the whole committee during the RPR gathering. The committee’s work is to produce a report for the General Assembly to consider regarding issues the committee found in the minutes.
And even when its work is done, it isn’t final. RPR’s work is presented as a recommendation subject to the review and approval of the General Assembly.
Review Process
The committee is charged with examining the minutes of every presbytery to ensure they conform with the Bible, the PCA’s constitution, and the guidelines the General Assembly has established for keeping presbytery minutes.
The PCA’s system of government doesn’t treat every mistake or violation the same. When the committee cites a presbytery for an irregularity, it must assign the citation to one of three categories:
- Exceptions of substance. This is reserved for apparent violations of Scripture or serious irregularities from the church’s constitution.
- Exceptions of form. This category is for record-keeping violations and minor irregularities.
- Notations. This category is for minor issues in form or clarity, like typographical errors.
Over the last six Assemblies, there has been a significant increase in the number of exceptions of substance cited by RPR, growing from 127 to 411 in a given year. And there’s great variation between presbyteries. Some presbyteries are cited with zero exceptions of substance while others can have more than 30. This year, the committee’s report contains approximately 385 exceptions of substance.
The committee is dynamic; its composition changes every year. Nearly half the men in attendance this year were not part of the committee last year. As a result, there is always some discontinuity from year to year as to what qualifies as an exception of substance. Every year, the group has to decide for itself what actions or inactions by a presbytery qualify as serious violations or important delinquencies.
Responses and Satisfaction
Whenever a presbytery is cited with an exception of substance, they are required to submit a response to the next General Assembly. RPR reviews not only the minutes of the previous year, but also the responses the presbytery has submitted for citations from previous years. The committee has to decide whether to find the response satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
A common issue with responses is that the presbytery may acknowledge its error, but fail to take corrective action. For example, if a presbytery failed to record the candidates’ stated differences in their own words during an examination, they often respond by acknowledging their error and vowing to do better in the future. Usually, the committee would deem this to be an unsatisfactory response. In addition to its future intent, the presbytery needs to record the candidate’s stated difference in its minutes and submit them to RPR.
Generally, a satisfactory response requires a correction of the record and proof that such has been done. Presbyteries are usually good at responding to these citations, but it often takes a couple of years of correspondence with the committee before they provide a response that is deemed satisfactory.
Lost in Translation
Communication is never as clear or precise as we think. The committee can and does misread and misinterpret what presbyteries have recorded. Similarly, presbyteries misread and misinterpret the citations sent to them. What the committee tells a presbytery and what the presbytery hears are not always perfectly aligned. Even when presbyteries understand what the committee is saying, it is not always clear to them how they should correct their errors. As a result, there is often back-and-forth correspondence over the course of several years until matters are resolved.
Additionally, the committee has been working to improve its communication with the PCA’s Korean language presbyteries. The committee recognizes there are cultural and linguistic differences that often make it difficult for the two parties to properly understand each other. For example, the committee and one presbytery have been going back and forth for six years on particular issues in their minutes. Representatives on RPR from Korean presbyteries informed the committee that face-to-face interaction is often more effective, as opposed to written correspondence.
Two years ago, the General Assembly took the extraordinary step of assigning a commission to help Korean Southwest Presbytery improve its minutes. Representatives of RPR attended Korean Southwest meetings and helped the elders put their minutes in order. The presbytery’s minutes have since improved significantly. This year, RPR passed a motion to help Korean Southwest Orange County Presbytery improve its minutes.
Broken Record
The most frequently used phrase in the committee’s report is “no record.” The committee cites presbyteries with exceptions of substance like this:
- No record that a representative was cited to appear before the presbytery.
- No record of review of session records.
- Purpose of called meeting not recorded.
- No record of 10 day notice for called meeting.
- No record of annual report for TEs without call.
Of course, it doesn’t mean the presbytery failed to take the proper action. Rather, it means they at least failed to properly record that they had done so.
Items of Note
Full freedom. PCA ministers regularly accept calls to serve outside the context of the local church or even outside the bounds of the denomination. A minister might accept a call to work for a nonprofit organization or as a chaplain at a hospital. When approving such a call, the presbytery is required to ensure that the minister will have full freedom to teach and practice his views (BCO 8-7). However, multiple presbyteries failed to record whether they had such assurances when approving a minister’s call.
Ministerial transfers. When ministers transfer from the PCA to another denomination, the presbytery of which he is a member has the responsibility to decide whether the body to which they are dismissing him maintains the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity. If not, then the presbytery is required to warn the minister, and, if he persists, to erase him from the roll (BCO 38-3). The committee cited multiple presbyteries that approved the dismissal of ministers to ecclesiastical bodies like the PCUSA and the Episcopal church.
Paedocommunion. A minister made it known during his transfer exam about his belief in paedocommunion, though he does not teach it or practice it. The committee cited the presbytery with an exception of substance for failing to properly judge his view. This has become a recurring issue that is often brought before the Assembly by way of RPR.
Second commandment. Numerous presbyteries granted candidates an exception regarding their views on images of Christ. By rule, when examining candidates, presbyteries are required to record the candidate’s stated difference with the Westminster Confession and Westminster Catechisms in the candidate’s own words. The committee cited multiple presbyteries with an exception of substance for either granting an exception on this matter or failing to properly judge the candidate’s difference. A repeated issue involved candidates not explicitly limiting their view on images to the second person of the Trinity.
Citations to Appear. RPR cited three presbyteries to appear before it when it meets in 2027 by way of a representative. Philadelphia Presbytery and Rio Grande Presbytery have both been cited to appear next year. This uncommon step is taken when the quantity and complexity of citations are such that correspondence is unlikely to prove effective. Korean Southwest Orange County has also been cited to appear.
SJC Cases
RPR had a new responsibility added to its workload this year. Whenever the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) issues a ruling on a case involving a presbytery, RPR must make sure the full decision has been included in the presbytery’s minutes and that the presbytery has made any amends required by the SJC (OMSJC 17.1.f. BCO 40-2-4).
This forced the committee to create new categories to track the compliance of presbyteries when it comes to SJC rulings. They decided to assign a status to the presbytery as follows:
- Non-Compliant: The presbytery has not recorded the full decision in its minutes and/or has not provided a statement describing how the lower court has complied with any amends contained therein.
- Pending: The presbytery has recorded the full decision in its minutes but has not completed the required amends. The review will be deferred to next year’s RPR.
- Deferred: The presbytery hasn’t met since receiving the SJC’s decision. The review will be deferred to next year’s RPR.
- Completed: The presbytery recorded the decision and complied with any amends.
Potential Changes
The committee briefly noted changes that could impact its work moving forward if the General Assembly approves Overture 7. It is an overture from Pacific Northwest Presbytery proposing to change the way RPR reports to the Assembly.
If approved in its current form, the exceptions of substance would no longer be part of the committee’s report to the Assembly. Instead, the committee would cite the presbytery to respond directly to the committee. If the response is deemed satisfactory, RPR would make that recommendation to the Assembly. If not, the presbytery would have to respond again to the committee. If the second response by the presbytery is judged unsatisfactory, then the committee would elevate the issue to the Assembly. One of the practical effects would be to reduce the size and scope of the committee’s annual report to the Assembly.
Final Report
Whenever RPR makes a recommendation, there is a process by which members of the committee can file a minority report. During the course of the meeting, members indicated their intent to present minority reports on multiple items mentioned above.
This article is a mere summary of RPR’s actions from the perspective of an observer and is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive. The full report will be made available to commissioners in the coming weeks. Moreover, the actions of RPR are not final; they simply make recommendations to the General Assembly, which may approve, reject, or amend these recommendations when it convenes in Louisville.
Andy Jones serves as the editor of byFaith