Lead Her There
Constitutional language is not a substitute for shepherding
I’ve been a vocal advocate of the proposed revisions to the PCA Directory for Worship (here and here and here). In the course of things I’ve observed that some wonder whether the proposed directory is still too loose in places. I think that is worth addressing.
Some may wish it were more explicit here, more restrictive there, or more directive in this or that particular area of worship. Those concerns should not be dismissed out of hand. A Directory for Worship ought to direct. If it becomes so broad that it can no longer guide the church with clarity, then it has failed in its purpose. But recognizing that a Directory may be improved is not the same thing as concluding that it should be rejected.
There is a difference between saying, “This proposal could be strengthened over time,” and saying, “This proposal is not worth receiving.” In fact, one of the best reasons to receive a faithful Directory is so that the church may begin using it, teaching from it, testing it in the life of the church, and, where necessary, amending it wisely.
The question is not whether the PCA has room to grow in the theology and practice of worship. She does. The question is how we help her grow. And the answer cannot be simply to force her into maturity by constitutional pressure. We must lead her there.
A revised and adopted Directory does not need to be the final word on every prudential question in order to be a meaningful step forward. It needs to be clear enough to guide us, biblical enough to bind us, and useful enough to serve the church. If it does that, then the proper path is not abandonment, but careful reception and future refinement.
Reform is never accomplished all at once. The church is not ordinarily strengthened by constitutional shock therapy. Elders do not lead congregations into deeper faithfulness by dropping a document on the table and saying, “There. Now be better.” That may produce compliance in some places. It will certainly produce resentment in others. But it will not, by itself, produce conviction, understanding, reverence, joy, or love for biblical worship.
A Directory can mark the path, but pastors and elders must still lead the church down it.
That is true at the congregational level. It is also true at the denominational level. If we desire the PCA to grow in the beauty, simplicity, reverence, and gladness of Reformed worship, then we must do more than perfect constitutional wording. We must teach. We must persuade. We must model. We must answer objections. We must show our people not only what we do in worship, but why we do it.
That does not make constitutional language unimportant. Far from it. Words in our constitution matter. They set standards. They shape expectations. They give church courts a common reference point. They teach future ministers and elders what the church believes to be wise and biblical. They provide guardrails for sessions and presbyteries. They help congregations distinguish between faithful liberty and mere preference.
But constitutional language is not a substitute for shepherding.
This is especially important when we are dealing with worship. Worship is not merely a matter of procedure. It is formative. The weekly service teaches the congregation what matters. It teaches them how to approach God. It teaches them how to listen, pray, sing, confess, give, receive the sacraments, and rest in Christ. Over time, a congregation’s worship forms its instincts.
That is why those who are concerned about looseness are right to care. Vagueness in worship is not harmless. If a Directory says too little, or says important things too weakly, then the church may be left without needed guidance. In that case, future amendment may be necessary and good.
But the way to strengthen the church’s worship is not merely to tighten language wherever possible. A Directory that tries to answer every possible question can become something other than a Directory. It can begin to function like a service manual, a liturgical script, or the constitutional expression of one segment of the church’s preferred practice. That would be a different kind of problem.
The goal should not be looseness. But neither should the goal be maximal prescription. The goal should be faithful direction.
That means a good Directory will sometimes speak with firm clarity. It must identify the ordinary elements of worship. It must insist that worship be governed by the Word of God. It must give real instruction concerning prayer, preaching, singing, sacraments, offerings, vows, and other parts of the church’s worship. It must not leave the impression that corporate worship is a blank canvas for ministerial creativity.
At the same time, a good Directory will also leave room for prudence. It will recognize that churches differ in circumstance, capacity, history, and need. It will not confuse biblical worship with one congregation’s order of service. It will not bind consciences where Scripture has not bound them. It will not try to make every congregation sound, look, and feel the same.
So what should we do if we believe the proposed Directory is basically faithful, but not as strong as it could be?
Receive it. Test it. Use it. Teach it. Then improve it.
Let sessions read it together. Let presbyteries discuss it carefully. Let candidates for ministry be examined with greater attention to the theology and practice of worship. Let congregations be instructed from it. Let ministers use it not only as a constitutional reference, but as a pastoral tool. Let the church live with it long enough to see where it gives needed clarity and where it may still need strengthening.
Then, where there are weaknesses, bring amendments.
Isn’t this what we do? We deliberate. We adopt. We use. We test. We amend. We do not need to pretend that any committee proposal is incapable of improvement. But neither should we reject a faithful and useful proposal because it does not yet contain every improvement we might desire.
There is pastoral wisdom in taking a real step forward rather than refusing to move until every possible step has been mapped in advance.
The PCA does not need a Directory that forces every congregation into an artificial mold. But neither does she need a Directory so loose that it fails to form us. She needs a Directory that guides, teaches, guards, and serves the church in the long work of worshiping God according to His Word.
If we want the PCA to worship with greater biblical clarity, reverence, simplicity, and joy, then the answer is not merely to tighten the language of the Directory. We should strengthen the Directory where it needs strengthening. But then pastors and elders must do the slower, harder, more pastoral work.
They must lead her there.
The work before us is not simply procedural. It is pastoral. If the proposed Directory gives us a faithful framework, we should receive it with gratitude. If it can be improved, we should amend it with patience and wisdom. And in all things, we should remember that the goal is not merely better language in a book, but better worship in the church.