A recent article examined the numbers associated with the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records. As someone who appreciates careful use of data, I found the article both interesting and helpful. During my years serving as Assistant (to the) Secretary and now as Secretary of the Committee, I have sought to help CRPR transition to a more data-driven model for compiling and storing its reports, rather than relying solely on text-based formats. The scope of the Committee’s work is substantial. CRPR reviews minutes from hundreds of Presbytery meetings each year—amounting to thousands of pages—and exceptions of substance require formal responses to the General Assembly from the presbyteries involved.

The ByFaith article is useful in presenting the raw numbers, but numbers alone do not always convey the full story behind the report. This article is not intended as a critique of that piece, but as a companion, an attempt to provide additional context and explain how those numbers came to be and what they represent. What follows may feel like “inside baseball,” but for those seeking to understand CRPR’s work more fully, that context matters.

Common exceptions

When we hear about so many exceptions, it can seem overwhelming. It is particularly for the secretaries who must enter and track the responses in the report. Nevertheless, I would argue that most of these exceptions are important and serious enough to warrant a response, even if they do not rise to the level of egregiousness. Many responses from Presbyteries indicate they agree, with the exception. The exceptions have not been falsely cited, although a court can and does err (WCF 31.3).

Many of the substance-related exceptions referred by the General Assembly involve what appear to be minor recording deficiencies, but these deficiencies often have serious ramifications. Whether a man is qualified to serve as a teaching elder, and whether he has undergone the required trials and examinations, is not a minor matter. These questions go to the care of Christ’s church and the shepherding of souls.

About 2/3 (66.4%) of the exceptions can fall into six categories; call-related exceptions (14.9%), examinations (13.9%), Minutes and order such as notice for called meetings or commission minutes not entered (10.9%), Annual reports not included (10.6%), Transfer related exceptions (8.3%), and candidate (no session endorsement, or 6-month membership) (7.8%). Many of these are often that Presbytery did not include the correct items in their minutes. What may seem small is important: the proper recording of a man’s preparation and trials for ordination, alongside the congregation’s right to elect those who have authority over them (PP 6). Many of these are automatically required to be cited as exceptions of substance because they fall under (RAO 16-3.5-7)

Committee Members Change

Every year, the CRPR has new members; there is consistency, but it is not the same group. One member can make a strong case for changing a prior practice. Previously, an item might have been labeled as an exception of form (sent to presbyteries but not required to respond to the General Assembly). One example from my time on the committee is the handling of exceptions for candidates coming under care. This is the first step in the process of becoming an ordained teaching elder in the PCA, which is about a man’s competency, but more importantly, his character, as evidenced by his six-month membership and the session’s endorsement. This exception accounted for about 7.8% of the General Assembly’s 2025 exceptions. While this does not make up for the drastic increase, the CRPR and, eventually, the General Assembly determine what constitutes a substantive exception. CRPR only recommends exceptions, and GA votes on them. One thing I know for sure while serving on CRPR is that every committee is consistently inconsistent, year to year and within the same report.

The General Assembly and the Committee changes its process

Not only does the committee change yearly. CRPR has changed drastically over the course of the PCA. In 1974, the CRPR report was only 4 pages long. As the denomination grows and changes, so do the practices. In 1988, CRPR requested that the denomination provide a computer and a computer operator1 to help produce the report; the ground they provided was “the enormous amount of material which must be processed by this Committee.”2 They continue to request this assistance, and in 1995, they requested a computer and an overhead.3 (This is hard to imagine when everyone carries a supercomputer in their pockets today). The following year, the committee provided an operations manual for information, stating that the report should be “typed original by Assembly stenographers.”4 CRPR has come a long way from 1973.

Frequently, CRPR recommends changes to the RAO, which, in turn, affect how the committee operates. Since 2000, the General Assembly has amended Chapter 16 (The chapter dealing with CRPR) of the RAO 11 times. Some of these changes seem minuscule, but others materially affect what constitutes an exception of substance. Two examples where GA has voted to change the RAO and, in effect, has changed how CRPR operates. Either the change to the status of TEs, which provides CRPR with the information needed to recommend exceptions relating to annual reports (10.6%), or the change to the definition of an exception (RAO 16-6.c.1), requires items to be listed as exceptions of substance (potentially 28% or more).

Internally, a change was made to allow for digital minutes to be submitted. Then, in the following year (I believe), the Committee changed how it handled minutes. Each Presbytery would be assigned to a Read Team, along with three other Presbyteries. Three members review the minutes of about 4 presbyteries; this has become easier through the Presbytery submitting digital records. In 2025, 72 Presbyteries submitted their records digitally. And on average, digital records receive 6.3 exceptions per Presbytery, whereas Presbyteries who send in print records receive 2.6 exceptions per presbytery. The distinction, I believe, is that those who send in print records are more experienced clerks. CRPR’s change might have increased its effectiveness and efficiency in reviewing minutes, compared with producing the report from printed minutes at the General Assembly. I personally believe the total number of apparent violations did not increase; rather, the committee became more effective at identifying them with the read team model.

The Report Changes

One practical factor that may have increased the number of exceptions is that, in recent years, the CRPR report has been generated by an automated system with limited capabilities. For those interested, read Teams submit a Microsoft Word Document with Form Fields that is then expanded into a spreadsheet (through a code that was written by a Ruling Elder who served on the Committee), and then, through many formulas and data queries, is sent to a mail merge, with several macros to format the report. Having data in this format is helpful, but it increases the need for members to remember specific items and makes follow-up more effective. The old member memory method was difficult when you have an annual meeting, and members do not regularly receive the same presbytery records for review. We can also provide data to evaluate and help clerks and presbyteries identify common exceptions, minimizing future exceptions. However, our current system has a single exception on one line, e.g., Date – Exception. However, in previous years, the secretaries would combine multiple exceptions into a single line: Date 1, Date 2, Date 3 – Exception. This would affect the number of exceptions counted, but not the number of exceptions given with the older system.

The Denomination Changes

The denomination has seen increases in many areas; while not all are as high as the CRPR report (241%), these increases suggest a healthy denomination carrying out its duties. For example, from 2000-2019, the average number of commissioners at GA was about 1,356 (1,081 was the lowest in 2009, and 1,652 was the highest in 2019). However, since 2021, the average has been 2,228 (the lowest 2,113 in 2024 and the highest 2,385 in 2022), up 64%. There has also been an increase in BCO changes. Between 2000 and 2019, the BCO was amended an average of 2.9 times per year, but in 2021-2025 it was amended 5.2 times per year (an increase of 79%). Between 2000 and 2019, 356 RE attended GA (Lowest 256 in 2014, highest 531 in 2005). Since 2021, GA has averaged 678 RE (lowest 615 in 2021, highest 751 in 2022), up 90%. Along with an increase in SJC cases (22 between 2000-2019 and 37 between 2021-2025), a 69% increase.5 These numbers may indicate a larger story: a denomination growing with some pains, or presbyters seeking to use the proper channels to operate in a healthy manner. Personally, I believe this highlights tensions within our denomination. The CRPR report is long (I know), but its length may be due to the denomination’s current story.

Conclusion

Data never lies; it is often one note of a stave surrounded by other notes. One of the blessings of the Presbyterian form of government is the existence of both higher and lower courts. One of the responsibilities of higher courts is to review lower courts’ records.

I have served on the Committee on Review of Presbytery Records since 2021. Each year, I am privileged to see men who voluntarily give significant time and effort to carry out this important work for the denomination, men who read hundreds of pages of minutes, prepare reports, travel to Atlanta, and then spend long hours in careful discussion and debate, all with the aim of serving Christ and His church. That report is sent to the Assembly, and the General Assembly votes on it. In recent years, commissioners have raised objections, but the Assembly has generally voted to refer the exceptions of substance to the Presbytery for a response, in agreement with the Committee’s recommendation. An increase in the number of exceptions should not be read as evidence of overreach or control. Rather, it reflects the ordinary and necessary accountability that presbyteries have to the General Assembly within our connectional system.