5 Reasons to Vote No On Overture 37

By Travis Scott, October 4, 2021.

There’s quite a bit of discussion in the PCA right now about Overture 37. For those not in the know, Overture 37 (O37) was approved by the 2021 General Assembly of the PCA. If approved by 2/3 of the Presbyteries, and ratified at the 2022 General Assembly, it would add the following language to BCO 24-1 on the examination of Teaching Elder Candidates: 

In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The candidate must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5, Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3; Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness, but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of the pastoral office, Presbyteries are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations of these matters and to give prayerful support to candidates.

There are indeed some commendable aspects to the paragraph above. However, as a whole it is problematic. While others have written more extensively on the problems with O37, my purpose below is to present 5 basic reasons to vote against these overtures. 

Reason #1: Overture 37 will not bring peace and unity to the PCA. 

Despite the claims of some, approving O37 will not bring peace and unity to the denomination. The wording of O37 is unclear (see Reason #4) and therefore it is bound to be interpreted and applied in very different ways by different Presbyteries. Indeed, this difference of interpretation was evident even in the debate of O37 on the floor of the Assembly. There are some who think O37 will bar all candidates who experience SSA from ordained ministry (indeed, who want it to), while others have stated that it will not. [1] It is clear from the debate and discussions that various Presbyteries would apply this wording very differently. Invariably, rather than ending controversy this overture will just kick it down the road a little further and likely ensure that this issue comes back to the General Assembly, or the SJC, again and again. 

Sadly, when it comes to the issues of sexuality and how they relate to ministry candidates, the PCA had a great chance for peace and unity by adopting the AIC Report on Human Sexuality. This document was widely lauded from all camps in the PCA and provided the best chance at unity. Overture 37 actually opposes the guidance of the Sexuality Report by seeking to police descriptors, and monikers. While the report agrees that is generally unwise to use descriptive terms like “gay Christian” the Committee went on to state, 

“Noting the range of possible meanings of terms like gay and gay Christian, we would do well to seek understanding before imparting advice. In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.” [2]

There are other ways in which O37 is at odds with the AIC Report on Human Sexuality, and it’s notable that several members of the AIC spoke against this overture on the floor of the Assembly, with others making similar comments online. Simply put, if you approve the AIC Report you, should oppose the guidance of O37.

More problematic is that some people wrongly think affirming O37 is essential because there was such a strong majority supporting it at the General Assembly. The logic is that we shouldn’t rule the strong voice of the Assembly ineffective by failing to affirm what it did. However, this is simply not how Presbyterianism, nor our specific polity works. The very reason we send matters such as O37 to the Presbyteries and a subsequent General Assembly for ratification is to assure that we do have a greater unity. The original vote of the 2021 General Assembly is nothing more than that – the original vote. The extra time and process is given to allow men further time to think through the implications of what’s proposed and to ensure that any not able to attend GA have a chance for their voice and vote to be counted. Ours is a system of checks and balances and the numbers of a particular Assembly go only so far. This is because we believe, “All synods or councils . since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred.” [3] Therefore the process of referring these matters to Presbyteries and a subsequent Assembly for ratification should never be treated as a rubber stamp. 

Reason #2: Overture 37 does not adequately align us with the biblical emphasis on character. 

One of the stronger arguments for voting for O37 is that it is necessary in order to bring our BCO into alignment with the biblical emphasis on character. Some have asserted that our BCO is currently deficient because it “does not specify the examination of an ordinand’s character.”  

There are two problems with this reasoning. First, it is simply wrong. The BCO does currently address this area and does specify the examination of an ordinand’s character. In fact, it does so twice. In the opening of BCO 24-1 it states that, “each prospective officer should be an active male member who meets the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.” It then goes on in 24-1a. to specify that each nominee shall be examined in, “his Christian experience, especially his personal character and family management (based on the qualifications set out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9).” So, contrary to the false claim above, the PCA BCO does have a clear and pointed concern regarding character and is already in step with Scripture. 

Second, if we want to bring the BCO into greater alignment with Scripture and seek more specificity in how ordinands are to be examined with regards to character, we should go much further than O37. If we want to be more in step with 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Tit. 1:6-9 we should be sure to include sober-mindedness, self-control, respectability, hospitality, sobriety, gentleness, peaceful instead of quarrelsome, not greedy or a lover of money, not arrogant or quick tempered, and he must have a good reputation with non-Christians. Moreover, Jesus tells us we are to love one another as he loved us, and to practice a unity mirroring the Trinity to show the world that they might know that we belong to him and that he is from God (Jn. 13:34; 17:23). A notable love and striving towards unity should be a part of this list. This is not to mention divisiveness (Tit. 3:9-11) or a host of other issues. If we want to create a specific list of character examination points that doesn’t need to be updated every time the cultural winds shift we should include every relevant vice and virtue from Scripture. 

Either that, or we could simply trust our Presbyters to know Scripture and examine men’s character accordingly since our BCO already instructs them to do so. The idea that we need to specify these things seems itself to be an open disparagement of PCA teaching and ruling elders by assuming they do not know they should be examining these areas of character.  

Reason #3: Overture 37 does not and cannot protect the church from problems arising from character deficiencies.

I have deep sympathy for the rationale that O37 is necessary in order to protect the church from problems arising from character deficiencies. I wish that simply amending our BCO could do this. I wholeheartedly agree that the PCA needs clear categories for the examination of character that will preserve the honor of our Lord, protect the flock from distress and harm, and guard the peace and purity of the church. However, we already have them.  

Our Scriptures are clear on these character issues. Our Confessional Standards, particularly the Larger Catechism’s explication of the 10 Commandments, are clear on these character issues. Our BCO has all the proper boundaries to allow us to take formal action to evaluate the character of prospective officers, and to discipline those who fail morally. Adding the language of O37 does nothing more to “ensure” anything to a greater degree than we already have. If we wanted to do more to try to assure ourselves of a candidate’s fitness for ministry we should be exploring things like mandatory background checks and psychological evaluations for ordinands. Yet even those could do nothing to “ensure” that candidates for ministry might not eventually cause problems for their churches. 

As Calvinists we believe in the radical corruption of human nature and the pervasive deceitfulness of human sin. We ordain every man with the hope and expectation that he will exemplify the nature of Christ to his congregation; but also with the knowledge that he may cause great harm to the flock. We entrust this whole process to the Lord and our current process and standards are part of how we do this responsibly. As an amendment to the examination process, O37 adds nothing of value to our process. Instead, it makes it more muddied and confused. 

Reason #4: The categories of Overture 37 are not clear, appropriate, or helpful.

While there are parts of O37 that are clear, taken as a whole it is not clear at all – and therefore not appropriate or helpful to add into our BCO which is supposed to guide us to clarity and consistency in practice. As has already been mentioned, during the debate on O37 contradictory interpretations  were stated. Since that debate, more contradictory interpretations  have been stated. Any policy which can be applied in wildy different and contradictory ways is just bad policy. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to add the language of O37 into our BCO as currently written. 

Beyond this, there are simple questions to ask about the language of O37 which demonstrate its unhelpful lack of clarity. 

For instance, what is meant by the phrase “known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness”? If a man admits to the presence of continued same-sex attraction is that sufficient self-profession to disqualify him from ministry? Some in the PCA say yes, some say no; but O37 brings no clarity to guide us to a consistent answer. Similarly, what is meant by reputation here? Is it the reputation with outsiders (the actual concern of 1 Tim. 3:7), or is it the reputation with a particular segment of the denomination? Is it the reputation a man has earned with his local community, or the reputation foisted on him by detractors online? The question, “reputation with whom and for what cause?” is not addressed by O37 and so it is unhelpfully vague. 

Another issue of unhelpful vagueness: What qualifies as making “progress over sin”? Does it mean a diminishing of the desires, or the presence of enough attraction to a woman that one could honestly enter into covenant marriage, or does it mean some sense of orientation change? How do we know if a candidate has made sufficient progress? Again, O37 does not provide  clarity on these answers. Also, the examples cited in O37 expose another flaw: When it comes to things like child sexual abuse and abusive behavior - do we really want to say that progress is all we’re looking for? The language of O37 as written suggests that as long as man is making progress in his abuse of his wife he may still be eligible. Of course we all know we don’t want that, and especially not the implications of the category of child abuse here, but the wording of O37 allows for it. 

It’s not surprising that O37 is unclear and unhelpful. It was amended quickly through the debate of the Overtures Committee and not given a lengthy enough period of time to properly consider all the wording in order to make sure it was clear and accurate. The language of O37 is the fruit of the emotionally heated debate in the Overtures Committee. That’s all well and good, but the denomination should expect more out of the policies it puts in place to shape future generations of ministers, perceptions of the church, and the ongoing debates. We can and should do better.

Some will say I’m claiming O37 is unclear and ambiguous simply because I dislike it. While it’s true that I dislike it, that claim is unwarranted. It is simply a deflection that doesn’t deal with the substance of the critique. What makes it ironic is that it seems the main argument for O37 is that some people find the BCO’s current language on this issue unclear and ambiguous. So, would it be right for us to dismiss the proponents of O37 as those who simply dislike our BCO? Of course it wouldn’t.

Reason #5: Overture 37 does not adequately express our conception of Christianity.

The Bible surely does call for Christians to imitate the faith and life of their leaders (Heb. 13:7). And our qualifications for office do express our ideal of what salvation involves. 

If we want to introduce language in our ordination vows which explicitly expresses our conception of Christianity, O37 does not go far enough. There is too much missing from it (see Reason #2 above). It’s these missing pieces which make O37 an unbalanced conception of Christianity that really does seem to add in a few extra vices simply to avoid looking like what it is – a targeted attack on one specific area of struggle. 

It has been slanderously claimed that opposition to O37 reveals a bias against holiness. I am opposed to O37. If I was opposed because I am biased against holiness then I should immediately be removed from ministry. But I’m not biased against holiness, at least no more than anyone else with our deceitful hearts. The proponents of O37 can and should do better than employing this sort of thoughtless and illogical disparagement of ministers and elders in good standing whom they happen to disagree with. 

Those of us opposed to O37 are not opposed because we don’t believe in a holy ministry, or because we view emphasis on holiness with suspicion, and definitely not because we are biased against holiness. 

We oppose this overture because it has too small and narrow a conception of holiness. It suffers from the marked lack of holiness that Jesus called out when he instructed us to remove planks from our own eyes before railing against the specks in the eyes of others. If we want to amend our BCO to give a fuller conception of Christian holiness in our ordination requirements - we have to be simultaneously more broad and more specific. We have to grapple with the whole range of holiness that Christian ministers are called to in mind, heart, body, and speech. Overture 37 simply does not do that. We should vote it down and take the time to create something better. Christ’s church deserves it.

[1] See Fred Greco’s comments in “Vote Yes on Amendments 23 & 37: Dominic Aquila & Fred Greco Explain Why”, https://vimeo.com/602742358.

[2] Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality, page 28, lines 36-39.

[3] Westminster Confession of Faith 31.3