# Differences between the PCA and the OPC



## EKSB SDG

I’m looking for information about the key differences between the PCA and the OPC, particularly with regards to doctrine and practice. I was going to do some internet searches, but then remembered that there is a wealth of knowledge (from like-minded believers) on this board.


----------



## raekwon

The following link could be helpful: Q and A


----------



## Edward

EKSB SDG said:


> I’m looking for information about the key differences between the PCA and the OPC, particularly with regards to doctrine and practice. I was going to do some internet searches, but then remembered that there is a wealth of knowledge (from like-minded believers) on this board.



One recent thread dealt with differences over allowing ruling elders to preach sermons; another dealt with preaching by seminary students. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/does-pca-allow-ruling-elders-preach-50455/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/who-would-authorized-preach-50369/


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Offhand, the OPC seems to run a tighter ship doctrinally and liturgically than does the PCA. There's a certain strictness, if not rigidity in some respects (culturally, for instance). 

The PCA definitely seems to be more 'open' to the secular culture, reaching out to the urban culture, young professionals, university students, etc., from all walks of life -- and who may or may not be, as of yet, orthodox or even close to it. (There's a Tim Keller-esque, liturgically 'free-form' PCA church a few blocks away from my campus which is growing in popularity among the evangelical students, including Arminians.)


----------



## DonP

It depends on the pastor. Some in the OPC came from the PCA and some OPC men allow elders to preach when ever it is convenient for the pastor, they just call it technically a word of exhortation.

Also the OPC offerings collected from the regular congregational collection can only be used for denominational missionaries and works, so the people are protected from having their consciences bound to give to works they would not want to. I appreciated that. 
A separate collection must be taken for works outside the denomination, it can't be a line item in the budget to come from normal offerings. 

They are supposed to hold more strictly to the Confession, not allowing exceptions as the PCA does. 
But in practice to get around this, esp. due to lax men like Hodge many now hold to only requiring strict adherence to the " Form of Doctrine" contained in the Confession. 

Which is actually an abandonment of subscription to the confession, at least full subscription. 

Now we have confusing terms like, strict, full, total subscription all which are unnecessary. 
You either subscribe or you don't. It only causes schism and division to allow men in who won't subscribe fully. There is no need not to. The doctrine of the unity of the church is as important as any other doctrine a man might think he knows better on. 

And they can always amend the Confession if they don't agree with it.

There are others as well, but there is such great dissension in the OPC now that one would be hard to say what they believe. 
To maintain purity and unity they may soon have to split.

So in actuality there is not much difference than the PCA. 

It smaller so every minister or elder has a chance to raise an issue at GA. Which some like. It may resolve matters sooner. 

The OPC has their own mission board and a man must be ordained to be a missionary. And he must be approved by the church to go on a mission and then he is supported by the churches, he is not allowed to raise his own support outside, as a para church ministry. 
Though the PCA work closely with MTW they do allow people to raise their own support.


----------



## ww

EKSB SDG said:


> I’m looking for information about the key differences between the PCA and the OPC, particularly with regards to doctrine and practice. I was going to do some internet searches, but then remembered that there is a wealth of knowledge (from like-minded believers) on this board.



The PCA was primarily based in the South in its origins and the OPC in the North. The PCA is broader in its Worship variations from one congregation to the next than the OPC. 

The PCA has 2 less members as of a month ago than the OPC who has just gained 2, my wife and I.


----------



## ChristianHedonist

PeaceMaker said:


> There are others as well, but there is such great dissension in the OPC now that one would be hard to say what they believe.
> To maintain purity and unity they may soon have to split.



Really? Dissension over what?


----------



## ww

ChristianHedonist said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are others as well, but there is such great dissension in the OPC now that one would be hard to say what they believe.
> To maintain purity and unity they may soon have to split.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Dissension over what?
Click to expand...


 Having spoken with numerous TE's, Elders, and others in the OPC I'm not aware of this "great" dissension either. Having just received feedback from the OPC GA I also didn't hear much about "dissension". Personally I think saying the OPC may soon have to split is one of the most melodramatic statements I've heard in quite along time.


----------



## DonP

ChristianHedonist said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are others as well, but there is such great dissension in the OPC now that one would be hard to say what they believe.
> To maintain purity and unity they may soon have to split.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Dissension over what?
Click to expand...


Check with your elder if he attends GA. I don't want to get into those things here. 

Leave it to say there is greater diversity than in the early years of the OPC and some of it stems from allowing ministers to study at private seminaries instead of seminaries governed by the church. 
One would only have to do a short perusal of the OPC posting board on yahoo to see the discussions.

An independent organization for its own benefit can say we seek advice or to work with ministers, but this is not the same as originating from the church or actually being under subjection to the courts. They are still outside and will do what they wants, esp. to make money and draw a crowd. 

I find Greenville Pres Theological Seminary to be an exception to most of the ills common in these private seminaries.


----------



## Josiah

whitway said:


> ChristianHedonist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are others as well, but there is such great dissension in the OPC now that one would be hard to say what they believe.
> To maintain purity and unity they may soon have to split.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Dissension over what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having spoken with numerous TE's, Elders, and others in the OPC I'm not aware of this "great" dissension either. Having just received feedback from the OPC GA I also didn't hear much about "dissension". Personally I think saying the OPC may soon have to split is one of the most melodramatic statements I've heard in quite along time.
Click to expand...


My Pastor is on our Presbyterys visitation committee in NW Presbytery and I have not heard from him any such news of dissension or talks of a split. 
In fact, with the exception of '03 '04 and maybe '07 the GA and the Presbyterys (from what I have noticed) seem to have been quietly going about their work (Particularly on the Final Proposed version of the DPW and Psalter hymnal).



> Leave it to say there is greater diversity than in the early years of the OPC and some of it stems from allowing ministers to study at private seminaries instead of seminaries governed by the church.
> One would only have to do a short perusal of the OPC posting board on yahoo to see the discussions.



I would have to say (as one who follows that Yahoo group) that I have not seen those discussions on Presbyterians-OPC. Would you be able to point me to the most recent conversation on that list concerning Parachurch schools?


----------



## DonP

Josiah said:


> I would have to say (as one who follows that Yahoo group) that I have not seen those discussions on Presbyterians-OPC. Would you be able to point me to the most recent conversation on that list concerning Parachurch schools?



No I doubt there is little debate on private seminaries, that would be my issue. I feel it is a weakness in the church and breeds dissension. 

Different teachers teaching very different things from Kline's stuff to Covenant Seminary's, to RTS to MARS to Greenville and the rest, there are strong differences. 
I would say GPTS, MARS and Puritan Reformed may have the most similarity and congruity with each other. 

If you wish to flesh this out in a healthy positive way, perhaps raise the question or look at back questions on, Which seminary should I go to. OR What are the distinctive differences at these seminaries. 

Suffice it to say, I used to attend most presbytery meetings and some GA. 
And there is a significant difference, even a polarizing of designer presbyteries occurring. 

This of course is quite hush hush and people are not going to openly speak about it. That would be schismatic if it was intentional. 

But anytime a man is rejected from entrance into one presbytery and allowed into another based on doctrinal belief, well this shouldn't exist in a confessional church. 
And men of certain persuasions, know which presbyteries will be favorable.


----------



## Archlute

I would agree with Don here. I spent several internships in the OPC, and saw the tensions first hand. They are in every denomination, but the OPC tends to hide it and deal with a lot of things in a back room manner. In the Southern California presbytery it was difficult for many WSC students to succeed in their endeavors because there was such a dislike toward anything coming out of Westminster West. The men there, speaking in the main, did not like Kline, did not understand analogical theology (even though it is a medieval and Reformation era theological distinction), and many were suspicious and skeptical toward anyone with that background. I know of a couple of very good men, better than I by far in their demeanor, who although they were humble, knowledgeable, and just desired to serve Christ in the pastorate without any agenda were denied ordination because of that presbytery's pet issues.

There are other presbyters, and I ran into this as well on a first hand basis, who will go out of their way to tell you that if you _are not_ Klinean enough they will do their best to keep you from getting ordained in their presbytery.

Again, there are squabbles in every denomination over such issues, I just found that many of the less admirable presbyters in the OPC would prefer to put a mask on it to the outside, instead of dealing with the problems up front and in a clear manner, and would rather make back room maneuvers in place of that. There are a lot of long term friendships at stake in some of these presbyteries, and that is always a dynamic to be factored in as well.


----------



## DonP

Archlute said:


> The men there, speaking in the main, did not like Kline, did not understand analogical theology (even though it is a medieval and Reformation era theological distinction), and many were suspicious and skeptical toward anyone with that background.



I think more important issues were those of Kline's students who went off the deep end with such extreme BT views they basically become practical antinomians and refuse correction and instruction from GA as Lee who was defrocked. 

The So Cal pres has men who have seen other extremes. They are also concerned about literal 6 day creation. 

So to say it is only the analogical theology is an oversimplification in my mind. 
And it is not just So. Cal that has these issues. 

It is also how close the votes are when the good does win. Many issues are decided by the barest majority, meaning there are many men on opposite sides. 

There was even a very close vote on correcting or reproving a minister for allowing tongues as a private non-interpreted language to be used in the worship service. He left the OPC rather than submit to their correction. But that a vote was so closely split on such an issue is not showing unity in my mind. 
Had there been two or three different delegates at that GA the OPC could be allowing tongues in church today. 
And it shows what kind of men they have let in and how a church can stray that far unchecked, that they would leave the denomination over such an issue. 
They make tongues a reason to divide. That is what is more important to them than unity and the other doctrines of scripture. Sad.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

As one on the theological fringes of the OPC, I’d like greater attention given to confessional subscription issues and more uniformity in worship. However, the OPC is a lot further from splitting or splintering than the PCA. There exists in presbyteries and at GA a core of men with family and historic roots going back to the beginning of the denomination. These tend to dominate the apparatus of the courts and make it difficult for new comers to be considered for committee assignments. However, these men for the most part do a good job. There is no effort to stifle expression of opinion, divergent views do not stigmatize fellow presbyters after the debate, and even a confessionally conservative new comer like me (four years OPC) finds himself sent as a commissioner to GA for the last four years. The OPC has always had individual congregations leaving from both ends of the theological and praxis spectrum. It continues to evolve as a denominational culture. However, the denomination has a much keener sense of its identity than the PCA; and the latter will split or splinter before the former.


----------



## Josiah

> There was even a very close vote on correcting or reproving a minister for allowing tongues as a private non-interpreted language to be used in the worship service. He left the OPC rather than submit to their correction. But that a vote was so closely split on such an issue is not showing unity in my mind.
> Had there been two or three different delegates at that GA the OPC could be allowing tongues in church today.
> And it shows what kind of men they have let in and how a church can stray that far unchecked, that they would leave the denomination over such an issue.
> They make tongues a reason to divide. That is what is more important to them than unity and the other doctrines of scripture. Sad.



This was a sad episode (New life leaving). How many New Life churches are even left in the OPC?

I had no idea that the vote was so closely divided at GA. Are there really that many REs and TEs in the OPC to make such a vote so close?


----------



## Reforming

Reformed Thomist said:


> Offhand, the OPC seems to run a tighter ship doctrinally and liturgically than does the PCA. There's a certain strictness, if not rigidity in some respects (culturally, for instance).
> 
> The PCA definitely seems to be more 'open' to the secular culture, reaching out to the urban culture, young professionals, university students, etc., from all walks of life -- and who may or may not be, as of yet, orthodox or even close to it. (There's a Tim Keller-esque, liturgically 'free-form' PCA church a few blocks away from my campus which is growing in popularity among the evangelical students, including Arminians.)



This is exactly what happened to me since going to college. I was raised an Arminian and came into contact with a PCA in Knoxville and since then I've become Reformed. Quite a switch, if I do say so myself.


----------



## Contra Marcion

Plus, lets no forget, our BCO is actually small enough to carry!


----------



## DonP

So is splitting a bad thing or a good thing? 

Does it purify the church and keep it intact or are we not maintaining enough unity even if we must sacrifice some purity. 

How does one determine which is best; a PCA model or an OPC model?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

PeaceMaker said:


> So is splitting a bad thing or a good thing?
> 
> Does it purify the church and keep it intact or are we not maintaining enough unity even if we must sacrifice some purity.
> 
> How does one determine which is best; a PCA model or an OPC model?



There should be one Christian Church in each nation in covenant with true churches of other nations. They should find their unity around a common confession of faith, form of government and discipline, and directory of worship.

Both OPC and PCA are lacking in common confession and worship, at least in their understanding, application and enforcement of such. Both have books of order that are too long. A Presbyterian form of government and directory of worship should be proof texted the same as the confession, not saying or requiring more than can be warranted from scripture. The Regulative Principle applies to all.

The OPC and PCA could learn from each other. The PCA needs a delegated assembly, the OPC needs something like a SJC, both could improve their ordination vows. The two should not merge before each has a more consistent understanding, application and enforcement of their constitutional standards.


----------



## Archlute

Contra Marcion said:


> Plus, lets no forget, our BCO is actually small enough to carry!



If the OPC was as "with it" as the PCA, then you guys would have that BCO in searchable PDF on your laptop


----------



## DonP

Glenn Ferrell said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is splitting a bad thing or a good thing?
> 
> Does it purify the church and keep it intact or are we not maintaining enough unity even if we must sacrifice some purity.
> 
> How does one determine which is best; a PCA model or an OPC model?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be one Christian Church in each nation in covenant with true churches of other nations. They should find their unity around a common confession of faith, form of government and discipline, and directory of worship.
> 
> 
> The two should not merge before each has a more consistent understanding, application and enforcement of their constitutional standards.
Click to expand...


Aren't the two previous statements in contradiction? 

One or not merge. 

And isn't there allowance for preferential style of worship, culture, language, etc. even within one country like America.

Or should they worship separately in their own churches but be part of the same denomination?
Like Chinese and Korean presbyterians in the US


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

PeaceMaker said:


> There should be one Christian Church in each nation in covenant with true churches of other nations. They should find their unity around a common confession of faith, form of government and discipline, and directory of worship.
> 
> 
> The two should not merge before each has a more consistent understanding, application and enforcement of their constitutional standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the two previous statements in contradiction?
> 
> One or not merge.
> 
> And isn't there allowance for preferential style of worship, culture, language, etc. even within one country like America.
> 
> Or should they worship separately in their own churches but be part of the same denomination?
> Like Chinese and Korean presbyterians in the US
Click to expand...


Unity is the goal. Organizational union does not necessarily get one there. The latter is of little value without unity in confession, worship and discipline. Bringing divergent groups together around some lowest common denominator or middle ground confession lays the ground for future division when specific issues began to matter again. This delays actual biblical unity.

Efforts at unity should focus on agreement in documents like those produced by Westminster (Confession, Catechisms, Directory for the Public Worship of God, and Form of Presbyterian Church Government).

Within the boundaries of enforced confessional standards and directory of worship, there will be limited room for cultural expression. However, the church and her worship is no cultural festival for man’s inventions or man pleasing.


----------



## charliejunfan

Doesn't the OPC sing more songs per service generally?
That would be a difference that would matter to me... But...they're not that different from each other...


----------



## Ivan

charliejunfan said:


> Doesn't the OPC sing more songs per service generally? That would be a difference that would matter to me...



Really? Why is that? That's interesting because it would make a difference to me too.


----------



## dudley

*Yes charlie*



charliejunfan said:


> Doesn't the OPC sing more songs per service generally?
> That would be a difference that would matter to me... But...they're not that different from each other...



You are correct- they are very similar in many ways.i have worshipped with the PCA also.

Dudley


----------



## fredtgreco

Ivan said:


> charliejunfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the OPC sing more songs per service generally? That would be a difference that would matter to me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Why is that? That's interesting because it would make a difference to me too.
Click to expand...


This is so completely dependent on the congregation that it is not worth generalizing over.


----------



## Scott1

Both the PCA and OPC are biblical, reformed denominations, generally growing.

I worshiped at a PCA church this past Lord's Day that sang psalms from the Psalter, which is published by a joint PCA/OPC publishing company. They read from the Heidelberg Catechism responsively. 

We are perhaps too critical- both of these are excellent denominations, very similar in doctrine and slightly different emphases.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Archlute said:


> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus, lets no forget, our BCO is actually small enough to carry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the OPC was as "with it" as the PCA, then you guys would have that BCO in searchable PDF on your laptop
Click to expand...


Do you mean something you could download to your laptop, like this:
http://opc.org/BCO/BCO_2005.pdf 
for instance?


----------



## Contra Marcion

Contra_Mundum said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus, lets no forget, our BCO is actually small enough to carry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the OPC was as "with it" as the PCA, then you guys would have that BCO in searchable PDF on your laptop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean something you could download to your laptop, like this:
> http://opc.org/BCO/BCO_2005.pdf
> for instance?
Click to expand...


There's just something cool about the little cloth-bound book. It just looks authoritative. Some elder opening up his MacBook at a meeting just doesn't have to same feel to it..........


----------



## TimV

Having the BCO online doesn't help if it's considered good advice rather than a rule  In the NorCal Presbytery of the PCA the BCO is like El Dorado, Atlantis or the Gospel according to Thomas. Something cool to bring up during late nights after a few beers, but more to chuckle over than to really believe exists  "Hey, I heard our denomination's Book of Church Order actually talks about who's qualified to be officers!". "Really, cool! Did you hear that Elvis was sighted late last night at the drive in?"

Still, after the last PCA GA, some of the liberals are stocking up on Depends, so at least they don't think they've won the Final Battle against the forces of the West.


----------



## fredtgreco

TimV said:


> Having the BCO online doesn't help if it's considered good advice rather than a rule  In the NorCal Presbytery of the PCA the BCO is like El Dorado, Atlantis or the Gospel according to Thomas. Something cool to bring up during late nights after a few beers, but more to chuckle over than to really believe exists  "Hey, I heard our denomination's Book of Church Order actually talks about who's qualified to be officers!". "Really, cool! Did you hear that Elvis was sighted late last night at the drive in?"
> 
> Still, after the last PCA GA, some of the liberals are stocking up on Depends, so at least they don't think they've won the Final Battle against the forces of the West.



Does that mean I can glue a couple parts of it together and wield it like Anduril?


----------



## TimV

> Does that mean I can glue a couple parts of it together and wield it like Anduril?



Everyone here already thinks of you as Aragorn, so go ahead.


----------



## Archlute

Tim, I might be laughing harder at what you said if there weren't so much truth reflected in that statement. 

I just had a discussion this afternoon with a presbyter who continually seems to go the route of "well, the _spirit_ of what the BCO is "really getting at" here is...." Instead of recognizing what the BCO actually _states_. Or the "pluralism by presbytery" approach that tries to imply that it is valid for various presbyteries to have differing standards regarding "how things are done around here" (without deferring to the BCO), and not that every presbytery is technically bound in all parts to it equally.


----------



## Spinningplates2

Glenn Ferrell said:


> However, the denomination has a much keener sense of its identity than the PCA; and the latter will split or splinter before the former.



Brother, I think you forgot to say, "In my opinion." Unless you have some secret knowledge you would like to pass on to us PCA members.


----------



## DonP

TimV said:


> Having the BCO online doesn't help if it's considered good advice rather than a rule  In the NorCal Presbytery of the PCA the BCO is like El Dorado, Atlantis or the Gospel according to Thomas. Something cool to bring up during late nights after a few beers, but more to chuckle over than to really believe exists  "Hey, I heard our denomination's Book of Church Order actually talks about who's qualified to be officers!". "Really, cool! Did you hear that Elvis was sighted late last night at the drive in?"



That would be a difference with the OPC in that most of their churches and ministers that I have been familiar with do go strictly by the book and get called on it if they don't. Many elders have it as closely memorized as the Confession, they stop the proceedings of Presbyterian or GA if there is a potential infraction of BOCO and correct it and stick to it there as well as in local sessions. And some members hold the elders to it as well. 

I wish they were as strict to follow the *entire *Confession. 

How ironic. 
But I think most do, but it ends up subject to interpretation or mostly "Wiggle room" as they term their acceptance of loose subscription instead of taking exceptions formally and recording them as the PCA is supposed to require. 

And I had the BOCO on my little PDA years ago and it is smaller than the book so no need for a big laptop if you have the confessions, BOCO and all the Catechisms and other docs all on a small PDA, Blackberry, etc..


----------



## Montanablue

> Many elders have it as closely memorized as the Confession,



Heavens, are you serious?

Church polity is, of course, extremely important, and I think elders should be very familiar with their body's BCO. But, memorizing it seems a bit extreme. Surely that time could be better spent memorizing or studying scripture?


----------



## TimV

> Church polity is, of course, extremely important, and I think elders should be very familiar with their body's BCO. But, memorizing it seems a bit extreme. Surely that time could be better spent memorizing or studying scripture?



It may seem extreme, until you see abuse on a massive scale like in the PCA's NorCal Presbytery. Just this last Father's Day an Elder from north San Luis County (two PCA's in SLO County) took the pulpit at the other PCA in that County and without warning the elder in good standing involved told the congregation that he and his friends recommended that the congregation have a "vote of confidence" about whether the elder should be on the session or not. And then he proceed to tell the congregation (where the elder in question has been the only functioning RE for years) all the problems they have with him.

The problems mostly being that he is conservative. He told the congregation that he and his good old boys were working with the elder under question to help him conform to Trinity Presbyerian's "position statement" which includes the following



> Role of Women
> At Trinity, a woman may serve the church in any way that a male layman may



which means that woman can lead the Sunday service 12 times per year (although admittedly no one's informed enough there to put two and two together).

Kathleen, I hope you never see a church constitution abused at this level, but if you do, you'll understand why the OPC is so serious about theirs. In fact, it has much to do with the reason the OPC was started.


----------



## Scott1

For those following, the constitution of the PCA consists of the Book of Church Order and the Westminster Standards subject to and suboordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

The OPC has the same structure, reflected in their "Preface":


> It is our prayer that as this book is used in the Orthodox
> Presbyterian Church, the great King of the church, our Lord Jesus
> Christ, will use it in maintaining his Word as its supreme rule of
> faith and life. Although the standards of government, discipline,
> and worship are subordinate to the Word of God, they may not be
> neglected without resulting in serious impairment of the life of the
> Church. They have been adopted by the Church as part of its
> constitution. Moreover, they have been received as being based
> upon the Scriptures, and even the elements not drawn directly
> from the Word have been acknowledged as being in accordance
> with the general rules of the Word. Their design is not to take the
> place of the Word, but to provide effective means for the application
> of its teaching in the government, discipline, and worship of
> the Church.
> 
> These standards, while printed separately from the doctrinal
> standards, should not be isolated from them. In using this book, it
> should be borne in mind that certain sections of the Confession of
> Faith and of the Catechisms deal directly with the principles and
> practice of ecclesiastical government. In the Confession, Chapters
> I, XXI, XXIII, XXV, XXVII–XXIX, XXX, and XXXI—treating
> respectively of the Scriptures, Christian liberty and liberty of
> conscience, religious worship and the Sabbath day, the civil magistrate,
> the church, the sacraments, church censures, and synods
> and councils—are of the most immediate significance....



In the PCA, it takes a majority vote at general assembly, then advice and consent of 2/3 of presbyteries, then a subsequent vote of general assembly to amend the book of Church Order.

To amend the Westminster Standards, it takes a 3/4 vote at general assembly, then advice and consent of 3/4 of presbyteries, then a 3/4 subsequent vote of general assembly to amend the Westminster Standards.

The OPC has a similar process, and I think takes majorities all the way through to amend their Book of Church Order and 2/3 votes to amend the Westminster Standards.

The Book of Church Order does reflect some doctrine and does reflect our polity. All officers (deacons and elders) vow to receive and uphold it.

From what I have seen, it is broadly followed- I have never seen anything like the kind of mocking disregard described here. Not saying that doesn't happen, but I've not seen it except in the case of one place that is deliberately not following its practice with regard to deacons ('deaconess') and that is being dealt with through the church courts.


----------



## Wayne

Another basic difference, alluded to in Scott's post, is that the PCA comes out of the old Southern Presbyterian denomination (PCUS) and based its _Book of Church Order_ on the 1933 PCUS _BCO_. The text of the PCUS _BCO_ is a clear departure from what had been in use in the PCUSA prior to the War and the division of the Old School PCUSA in 1861.

The OPC came out of what was at the time called the Northern Presbyterian Church, the PCUSA. Not surprisingly, the OPC based its initial Form of Government on the PCUSA Form of Government (1934 edition):



> "...the Committee desires to call attention to the fact that the proposed Form of Government is to a large extent the Form of Government which has been in use in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. for over a hundred years..." [M2GA, p. 14]



Then over the last 60-70 years, subsequent changes have made the OPC's _Book_ a more unique and distinctive document. Changes to the OPC _Book_ are made less frequently and with more debate, while the PCA seems to make some changes virtually every year (though most of those changes are to a relatively small number of chapters--many chapters and paragraphs remain unchanged from the 1973 edition of the _BCO_).

In sum, there are still many similarities between the OPC and PCA _Books_, but there are substantial differences too. For more specifics, see Historical Development of the PCA Book of Church Order : Project Home Page (though I will say this is still very much a work in progress!)

That's enough overly detailed information for now. Is everyone worn out? Good, then I've done my job. Come back next week for our next session of "Polity Calisthenics".


----------



## puritan lad

As one who attends both churches (for family reasons), here are some differences from my perspective and research. Others may weigh in to correct any historical errors here.

From a pure doctrinal standpoint, the OPC and PCA are identical. Both are Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterian (though the PCA is often more run by committee than pure presbyterianism), and both hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Both recognize the ordination of each others ministers; if you are ordained in one denomination, you can pastor in the other. They both co-own the Great Commissions Publications publishing house. 

The original Presbyterian split happened before the Civil War between the North (PCUSA) and South (RPCUSA). After the PCUSA became more liberal (1924 Auburn Affirmation), it excommunicated the true Christians like J. Gresham Machen, who also lost his position at Princeton Theological Seminary. These men formed what at that time was called the Presbyterian Church of America. After a lawsuit, they change their name to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

In the late 1960's, the RPCUSA, led by Karl Barth, became more liberal and sought to reunite with the PCUSA (which it eventually did in the early 1970's). Of course, that meant that it would accept the ordination of those who held to the Auburn Affirmation. As a result, the true Christians left that denomination in 1972 and formed the current Presbyterian Church of America.

Both the OPC and the PCA have their strengths and weakenesses, though individual churches may vary. The PCA appears stronger in evangelism in general. The OPC has been called the "frozen chosen", and that label is not entirely undeserved. In my experience, the OPC tries so hard to avoid being "seeker sensitive" that you rarely see any sort of outreach in the local church. The PCA is also more open to different instruments in worship, but does so in a balanced manner without having a rock concert gimmick to try and draw a crowd. The OPC is more puritan in it's worship, keeping it simple and reverent. Which one is better is more of an aesthetic question (No musical instrument debates please). Personally, I like the reverent worship of the OPC and it's use of the Psaltery. Less pleasing to man, but more glorifying to God.

The OPC, on the other hand is stronger in doctrinal preaching. Their teachings are usually richer in Reformed Doctrine and the applications of that doctrine, whereas the PCA that I attended is sometimes ashamed to express their Reformed Beliefs for fear that it would ostracize them from the evangelical community. 

The real strength of the OPC, however, is it's church discipline. The OPC won't hesitate, if necessary, to put it's ministers on trial for heresy, whereas the PCA seems very reluctant to do so. In no case was this more apparent than in the Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul controversy. When this began to be a problem, the OPC acted very quickly with a long resolution examining the teachings of the Federal Vision, it's history, and why it was a heresy. They then warned their ministers against teaching such at the risk of being defrocked. Today, FV teaching is alive and well in the PCA, and nearly non-existent in the OPC. 

I currently attend both churches, a member of the PCA on Sunday mornings, and an OPC service on Sunday evenings. One disturbing trend in the PCA is a move toward women having office in ministry.

Again, this is what I have assertained from personal experience and studies...


----------



## Montanablue

TimV said:


> Church polity is, of course, extremely important, and I think elders should be very familiar with their body's BCO. But, memorizing it seems a bit extreme. Surely that time could be better spent memorizing or studying scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem extreme, until you see abuse on a massive scale like in the PCA's NorCal Presbytery. Just this last Father's Day an Elder from north San Luis County (two PCA's in SLO County) took the pulpit at the other PCA in that County and without warning the elder in good standing involved told the congregation that he and his friends recommended that the congregation have a "vote of confidence" about whether the elder should be on the session or not. And then he proceed to tell the congregation (where the elder in question has been the only functioning RE for years) all the problems they have with him.
> 
> The problems mostly being that he is conservative. He told the congregation that he and his good old boys were working with the elder under question to help him conform to Trinity Presbyerian's "position statement" which includes the following
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Role of Women
> At Trinity, a woman may serve the church in any way that a male layman may
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which means that woman can lead the Sunday service 12 times per year (although admittedly no one's informed enough there to put two and two together).
> 
> Kathleen, I hope you never see a church constitution abused at this level, but if you do, you'll understand why the OPC is so serious about theirs. In fact, it has much to do with the reason the OPC was started.
Click to expand...


Do you think that these men were actually ignorant of the BCO or that they were blatantly disobeying it? From what you write, I wonder if they knew that they were disobeying the rules, but just didn't care. 

At any rate, I see your point. Like I said, I certainly agree that understanding and having a good knowledge of one's BCO is essential. I just think that being able to recite it verbatim is a bit much. Surely one can look something up if one is unsure about a point? The key seems to be being willing to consult the BCO and then adhere to it before engaging in a point of church polity...yes?


----------



## Edward

puritan lad said:


> In the late 1960's, the RPCUSA, led by Karl Barth, became more liberal and sought to reunite with the PCUSA (which it eventually did in the early 1970's). Of course, that meant that it would accept the ordination of those who held to the Auburn Affirmation. As a result, the true Christians left that denomination in 1972 and formed the current Presbyterian Church of America.



?????

The PCA came out of the PCUS. And I don't recall Barth as having been involved in a leadership role. And on the other side of the merger was the UPCUSA. The PCUSA was earlier and later.


----------



## DonP

Montanablue said:


> Many elders have it as closely memorized as the Confession,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavens, are you serious?
> 
> Church polity is, of course, extremely important, and I think elders should be very familiar with their body's BCO. But, memorizing it seems a bit extreme. Surely that time could be better spent memorizing or studying scripture?
Click to expand...


Would you go out and drive a car without knowing the rules of the road? 

Its no different. When you are in a presbytery meeting and someone does something in violation of policy, if no one knows the policy then they go ahead and do it. 
So you have a lot of work to do to go back and undo it. 

Much preferable to have churchmen well schooled in polity. And I doubt most sit and memorize it in one day. ( I tried). It comes with frequent use and reference over time. 
This is why the church needs OLD people. And not allow all the intelligent young people to take over. 
There is no knowledge like that which comes from making lots of mistakes and paying their price. 
Experience is Amazing once you have it and see all the smart people who don't. 
A great aspect of Wisdom is: Wisdom = Knowledge + Experience.


----------



## Scott1

> At any rate, I see your point. Like I said, I certainly agree that understanding and having a good knowledge of one's BCO is essential. I just think that being able to recite it verbatim is a bit much. Surely one can look something up if one is unsure about a point? The key seems to be being willing to consult the BCO and then adhere to it before engaging in a point of church polity...yes?



Not to distract from the interchange, but thought it might be helpful to put this in context for those following.

I'm not familiar with the situation or presbytery mentioned but, generally there are a couple things to note in the PCA's polity.

Members are not required to comprehensively understand and agree with their church's doctrine but officers are. This is especially true with teaching elders.

Other officers who govern the particular church (that's a presbyterian BCO term) vow they receive and accept the church's polity. Most of that is in the Book of Church Order.

In practice, it's not really a case of studying and memorizing the BCO. My Pastor once said the BCO is a book we learn by using it. There are many things that are not directly scriptural but are procedural judgments yet almost everything relates to basic doctrines we confess in some way.

That's why as I've come to understand a few churches are "doing their own polity" (by devaluing ordination, the office of deacon and created commissioned stepped down office titles), it's not only a violation of vows (serious discipline issue there), but also one of the doctrine of polity of our denomination:

God governs his local church through a plurality of deacons and elders- qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, elected, ordained and installed by holy ordinance of worship, and taught to the people as doctrine.


----------



## Montanablue

> In practice, it's not really a case of studying and memorizing the BCO. My Pastor once said the BCO is a book we learn by using it. There are many things that are not directly scriptural but are procedural judgments yet almost everything relates to basic doctrines we confess in some way.



This is what I was trying to get at, but I don't think I said it very well. Thank you. I was not trying to demean the importance of having, understanding, and following a BCO at all. My point was more that rote memorization might not be the absolute best way to use and follow the BCO.


----------



## puritan lad

Edward said:


> puritan lad said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the late 1960's, the RPCUSA, led by Karl Barth, became more liberal and sought to reunite with the PCUSA (which it eventually did in the early 1970's). Of course, that meant that it would accept the ordination of those who held to the Auburn Affirmation. As a result, the true Christians left that denomination in 1972 and formed the current Presbyterian Church of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?????
> 
> The PCA came out of the PCUS. And I don't recall Barth as having been involved in a leadership role. And on the other side of the merger was the UPCUSA. The PCUSA was earlier and later.
Click to expand...


Thanks Edward. I'll research a little more...


----------

