In Presbyterian church government, higher courts are responsible for reviewing the actions and records of lower courts. As a result, the General Assembly is responsible for reviewing the minutes of the 87 presbyteries spread across the U.S. and Canada. The Review of Presbytery Records is the committee entrusted with this task. The committee met last week near Atlanta to conduct its work. 

The Review Process

By the very nature of its work, the committee cites presbyteries for problems in their record keeping. Specifically, RPR highlights areas where the presbytery took actions it should not have taken or failed to take actions it should have taken. These issues often arise from a presbytery failing to properly record the actions it took. 

When RPR examines the minutes of a presbytery and finds irregularities, the committee must decide whether they appear to be exceptions of form or substance. An exception of form is a minor irregularity. An exception of substance is a serious irregularity. The debate within the committee is often not whether a presbytery erred; rather, it often centers around whether the error should be treated as a matter of form or substance. 

“No Record”

The most repeated phrase throughout the committee’s report is “no record.” When the committee cites a presbytery, it often uses statements like this:

• No record of a congregational meeting.
• No record of an annual report from teaching elders serving out of bounds.
• No record of reviewing session minutes. 
• No record of quorum for a meeting.

The failure to record may be just that: The presbytery may have taken the required action but simply failed to properly record it. 

A presbytery’s minutes are not a transcript of the meeting, but the PCA’s constitution provides specific instructions as to what must be included in the minutes of a meeting. This includes everything from the opening prayer to the various parts of an ordination exam. When required items are missing, RPR informs the presbytery and requests that it address the oversight. 

When a presbytery is cited with an exception of substance, they are required to respond by the following year. The most common response is, “We acknowledge our error and have corrected our minutes.” 

Items of Note

Korean Southwest. Last year, the General Assembly took the extraordinary step of assigning a commission to help Korean Southwest Presbytery improve its minutes. Over the past year several elders travelled to participate in their meetings and assist them in putting their minutes in order. This year’s RPR was encouraged by the progress that has been made. 

40-5 items. RPR received four reports regarding 40-5 matters. These are communications sent to the General Assembly and referred to the committee. They originate from various parties with concerns about alleged unconstitutional proceedings in presbyteries. The committee ruled in all four cases that the matters referenced did not rise to the level of being grossly unconstitutional or important delinquency. In two cases, they cited the presbytery for an exception of substance. 

Character exams. In the Book of Church Order, presbyteries are required to examine candidates for the ministry regarding “experiential religion,” which refers to their personal character and family management (21-4.c(1)(a)). There is an additional note in a separate section that presbyteries should “give specific attention to potential notorious concerns” (21-4.e). There was discussion whether presbyteries are required to specifically record having given attention to this when examining candidates. The committee is proposing an amendment to the RAO that they hope will clarify this issue. 

Laying on of hands. On a few occasions, presbyteries have recorded the laying on of hands when installing pastors who have already been ordained. This practice was the focus of debate. Some elders believe that the laying on of hands should only be utilized when a man is being ordained to office, while others believe it is permissible on other occasions as well. The committee decided against citing presbyteries for laying hands on ministers already ordained.

Empowered to appoint. Every year, presbyteries have the opportunity to elect men to serve on committees of commissioners for General Assembly. It is a common practice for presbyteries to empower their moderator or clerk to fill any vacancies on committees of commissioners. Numerous times RPR debated the propriety of this action. Those in support of it noted that similar actions have been taken by the General Assembly, empowering the moderator to appoint people to take actions on behalf of the Assembly. Those opposed believe only the presbytery or a properly constituted commission has the power to make such appointments (BCO 15-2). The committee decided to cite presbyteries who have made this their practice. 

The Episcopal Church. The committee cited a presbytery for dismissing a minister to the Episcopal Church and not judging that body “as failing to maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity” (BCO 21-4). Those in favor of citing the presbytery believe the Episcopal denomination should be categorically recognized as lacking integrity in the fundamentals. Others argued that several variables within each diocese make it difficult for the committee to draw such conclusions with certainty. The committee decided to cite the presbytery with an exception of substance for their judgment on this matter. 

Women reading Scripture.  A minister being examined for transfer informed his presbytery that he believes it is permissible for women to read Scripture in worship. The presbytery declared a minister as having a stated difference that doesn’t strike at the vitals of religion because of this view. A lengthy discussion centered on whether such a view is actually at odds with our confessional standards at all. The committee decided that the presbytery’s action of citing the candidate’s difference was not an exception of substance.

Elevating discipline. A presbytery convicted a minister and indefinitely suspended him from office. Months later, they decided to depose the minister without having introduced new charges. RPR committee members discussed whether the presbytery acted in accord with our polity when they did this. The committee decided against citing the presbytery for their action in this case. 

Paedocommunion. In two presbyteries, candidates made known their views in support of paedocommunion. Both presbyteries declared this view to be more than semantic but not hostile to the system of doctrine or striking at the vitals of religion (BCO 21-4). The committee decided to cite both presbyteries with an exception of substance. 

The presence of Christ. A candidate made known his difference with Westminster Confession of Faith 29.7 regarding the manner in which Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper. The committee ruled that the presbytery incorrectly ruled this difference as not out of accord with our system of doctrine or striking at the vitals of religion because the candidate appears to deny the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament. 

Roman Catholic marriage. Two presbyteries granted a doctrinal exception to candidates who believe there are occasions when it is permissible for a Christian to marry a member of the Roman Catholic Church who exhibits himself or herself to be a genuine follower of Christ. The committee debated whether these presbyteries should be cited for this action and decided to do so. 

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 and is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive. The full report will be made available to commissioners in coming weeks. Moreover, the actions of RPR are not final; they simply make recommendations to the General Assembly who may approve, reject, or amend these recommendations when it convenes in Chattanooga. 

The article was updated on 6/2/2025 with a correction to one of the committee’s decisions.