New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
Yes, the thing with Baptist polities (and it is no different for Pentecostals, which is the example I do know) is that their national/state leaderships would have very little influence in that matter. In that instance, the leadership structures are there to support collective movement-wide endeavours like supporting missionaries, which they do well; organise the training of clergy; and also licence clergy. But in these instances, national oversights do not have overmuch influence in how local congregations are led, and really cannot do anything unless something has gone egregiously awry. Hence Liam’s disdain.
Presbytery or GA oversight seems to be more bark than bite in the PCA.
1 Like
@aaron.prelock I once joked to my father that leading at national level in a Pentecostal movement was “very like herding cats”. He didn’t disagree 
1 Like
you write
Over a month after the beginning of Goligher’s notorious public scandal, there are no indications Tenth’s session, congregation, or Philadelphia Presbytery has initiated discipline.
Did you check the records of the Philadelphia Presbytery?
“Indications” are not proof. In this notorious public scandal, it is the fundamental responsibility of both the Session of Tenth and Philadelphia Presbytery to make it clear, publicly, that judicial process has been initiated. But, as I pointed out, as of a month following Goligher’s abandonment of his call, there were no indications of this. This itself is a public scandal. Love,
PS: If you are going to speak to the Tenth scandal, please identify yourself.