An Analysis of Overture 15 to Amend BCO 7
By Tim LeCroy, October 10, 2022.
Introduction: The Need For New Amendments to Safeguard the Ministry
The 2022 PCA General Assembly in Birmingham, Alabama adopted Overtures 15, 29, and 31, seeking to amend the Book of Church Order. These amendments were proposed due to the concern in the churches regarding the issue of homosexuality, specifically the concern over the ordination of homosexual pastors and elders. That concern is valid. We see in the culture around us the growing acceptance of norms that conflict with Christian morality. It is reasonable to make efforts to safeguard the Christian ministry, especially when other denominations have removed prohibitions excluding from Christian Ministry those engaging in what our Confessional Standards teach is immoral. The PCA has not and will not amend our Confessional Standards or relax our adherence to or enforcement of what those Standards teach regarding the authority of scripture and sexual morality. This is not up for question or debate in the PCA.
What is up for debate is how we will go about safeguarding the ministry. Are our Confessional Standards and our current Book of Church order sufficient to perform this task? Or do they need amendment in order to adequately safeguard the church? And if so, what kind of amendments are best?
Two of the Amendments Are Worthy Additions to the BCO
These three BCO amendments, adopted by the General Assembly and sent down to the Presbyteries for the second step in ratification, have taken the second approach. They are saying that the BCO needs further refinement in order to properly safeguard the Christian ministry. The amendments are a reprisal of two amendments from the previous year (Overtures 23 and 37, see 48 PCAGA, p. 108-109, 113-116) that failed to achieve the approval of two-thirds of the presbyteries and were thus defeated. New overtures (15, 29, and 31) were proposed this year, seeking to refine those of the previous year so that the refined proposals might clear the presbytery hurdle. However, while all three overtures were adopted by the assembly, they did not receive the same margin of approval, nor are they of equal quality.
Overtures 29 and 31 (see “Item 4: Amend BCO 16 by adding 16-4” and “Item 5: Amend BCO 21-4 and 24-1” here.) sought to remove or adjust aspects from the previous year’s amendments that were seen as reasons for their failure in the presbyteries. These two overtures attempt to strengthen the policies and procedures by which we safeguard the Christian ministry while not targeting specific sins or attempting to police language. These two overtures were careful not to equate admitting one’s particular sin struggle with identifying with that sin. They were careful to remove the “being known as” language because a candidate for ministry can not always control what other people say about him.
The previous year’s amendments were seen by many as too broad in what would be considered objectionable and too restrictive in who would be allowed into the ministry. The concern then, as it is now, is that any of these amendments would disqualify a man who is repentant, mortifying sin, and experiencing spirit-empowered victory over it simply because he is honest with others about his struggle. Two of the new overtures (29 and 31) incorporated those concerns and brought forth amendments to strengthen our safeguards while not losing consensus. The broad acceptance of these two amendments is reflected in the fact that they were approved (as amended) by the Overtures Committee by wide margins (O29: 120-17, 88%; O31: 111-24, 82%) and were approved on the floor of GA by even larger margins (O29: 1922-200, 91%; O31 passed in the omnibus 2062-33, 98%).
Overture 15 Lacks Broad Consensus
Overture 15 (See “Item 1: Amend BCO 7” here.) did not achieve the same kind of broad consensus. It failed in the Overtures Committee, being answered with reference to Overture 29 by a tally of 80-47 (63%), voting not to recommend it for adoption. Thus, Overture 15 was only brought to the floor via a minority report. The minority prevailed on the floor, but the vote was 1167-968 (55%), a far cry from the 91% and 98% consensus expressed by the Assembly in supporting Overtures 29 and 31.
Thus, the question arises: why did 768 commissioners, who voted in favor of strengthening our safeguarding of the ministry on Overture 29 not do so on Overture 15? Further, why did 63% of the Overtures Committee, which overwhelmingly approved Overtures 29 and 31 not think adopting 15 was necessary? Lastly are the reasons why last year's overtures failed in the presbyteries sufficiently addressed by this year's Overture 15? These questions are worth exploring.
The easiest explanation for the disparity in vote margins seems to be that Overture 15 did not exhibit the same care to listen to the concerns of those who voted against approving the previous year’s amendments in the presbyteries. The amendment brought to the floor by the minority report targets a specific sin, it attempts to police language, it is overly broad in what it prohibits, and it is overly restrictive in who it admits to the ministry. The “being known as” language is replaced with “describes himself as” and the “Gay Christian,” “Homosexual Christian,” and “Same-Sex Attracted Christian” labels are replaced with “homosexual.” But the substance is the same as the 2021 efforts. Further, based on the wording of the amendment itself and arguments that have been published in favor of adopting it, this amendment does not answer the objections I raised above. Its proponents want to paint with a broad brush, police language, and prohibit men called by God from entering into Christian Ministry in our churches because they struggle with a particular sin.
Amendments Are What Their Text Says
Proponents of ratifying this amendment have made various claims about what it is and what it will and won’t do if it becomes church law. To be frank, what anyone, including myself, says the purpose of the amendment is or what it is intended to do doesn’t matter. If someone were to write, “The purpose of this amendment isn’t to prevent anyone who struggles with homosexuality to be a minister,” that has no bearing at all on how it will be interpreted and applied by the courts of the church. All we have is the language of the amendment. Someone standing up during the course of debate to ease the voting body of this or that concern has no bearing on the amendment itself. Speeches made during debate do not become an interpretive framework for the application of an amendment. Once the amendment is ratified, the text of it is all we have. So what does it say?
Analysis of the Text of Overture 15
The text of the proposed amendment:
Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Taking out the clause in the middle, the amendment plainly says that men who describe themselves as homosexual are disqualified from holding office in the PCA. The middle clause merely identifies a subset of the supposed group identified and clarifies that the subset is also disqualified. Therefore, the force of the amendment is that all men who describe themselves as homosexual are disqualified from holding office in the PCA, without exception.
Overture 15 Contradicts the AIC and RPCES Reports
But what does it mean to describe oneself as homosexual? The first option is that it means anyone who uses the word “homosexual” to describe oneself. If so, this seems to go against the 2021 AIC on Sexuality on several points regarding use of terminology. First of all, while in Statement 10 on “Language” (p. 12) the AIC does advise against using the term “gay Christian” because, “it is still inappropriate to juxtapose this sinful desire, or any other sinful desire, as an identity marker alongside our identity as new creations in Christ,” in the paragraph that follows, the AIC states that use of the word “gay” without the word “Christian” attached is not always inappropriate. They state, “we recognize that some Christians may use the term ‘gay’ in an effort to be more readily understood by non-Christians. The word ‘gay’ is common in our culture, and we do not think it wise for churches to police every use of the term,” (p. 12, lines 12-14). If the AIC advises against policing the term “gay,” how much more should we not do so of “homosexual,” a term more clinical in nature and less attached to any identity or political movement. If a man describes himself as homosexual as a way to share his particular sin struggle with others, that is far different from taking on a sinful identity and embracing it for one’s self.
In fact this is exactly what the AIC report describes (if we replace the word “gay” with “homosexual"): “Some use the term in a simple adjectival manner, suggesting that the adjective gay is merely meant to describe which particular Christians one is referring to (namely those experience attractions to the same sex) with no intentions to make a definitive statement about identity,” (p. 30, line 11). They later conclude, “we ought not start from the assumption that they are being unfaithful or living in active rebellion to God,” (p. 30, line 32). The proponents of Overture 15 universally praise the AIC report. And yet they are promoting an amendment that goes directly against what it recommends. How can we rightly forbid a man from ministry, when we shouldn’t make assumptions that a person is being unfaithful simply because of a term they use to describe themselves?
Further, the ban of the term “homosexual,” contradicts “Pastoral Care for the Repentant Homosexual” a 1980 report of the RPCES. These reports of the RPCES were received into the PCA with joining and receiving as the same kind of pious advice that our own reports offer. This report uses the term “homosexual” some eighteen times in a neutral, non-identity claiming way, and even uses the phrase, “homosexual brother and sister,” three times to refer to those members of our congregations who are repenting of their same sex struggle. How in the world can we say that a minister cannot describe himself as homosexual when an entire denomination that the PCA received into its membership in 1983 commended a report just three years prior that referred to believers in Christ as “homosexual brothers and sisters”? It may be countered that the RPCES report refers to “repentant homosexuals,” and the amendment O15 proposes does not forbid the description of oneself as a repentant homosexual. I would reply that the amendment does not distinguish between repentant and non-repentant; in fact, the middle clause of the amendment suggests that there is no valid way of using the term to describe oneself whatsoever, “even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct.” No, if the amendment means “use the word ‘homosexual’ to describe oneself,” then it bans any use of the term whatsoever.
Overture 15 Allows the Use of Other Terms
But if the word “homosexual” is banned, what of other terms that are not forbidden by the amendment? Are they then OK to use? What of the words, “gay,” “queer,” “bisexual,” or “same-sex attracted”? What if the word “Christian” is attached to any of these? The most frequent terminological objection is raised in the juxtaposing of sin and Christian identity by the use of the term "Gay Christian." But this term is not mentioned by the amendment. Is that then OK to use? Indeed many of the proponents of this amendment have tried to skirt this flaw in the text of the amendment by arguing that the usage of all these terms is forbidden by it. But that is simply not what the amendment says. As it is worded, the amendment forbids only the use of the term "homosexual." Thus as long as a man uses "gay" instead of "homosexual" he would still be eligible for the ministry. This is obviously not the intention of the framers of the amendment.
Other proponents have said that the amendment is an attempt to rid the PCA of those who celebrate their homosexuality and revel in their sinful identity. This is inaccurate, because that is not what the amendment says. It simply refers to a man who uses the word homosexual to describe himself. It says nothing of celebrating or reveling, and, further, a man may use the word to describe himself without celebrating that identity or reveling in that sin, as the AIC report points out in Statement 12. Some have argued that the Bible itself forbids the use of the term, “homosexual,” citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. But this ignores the fact that Paul did not use a generic term that could refer to both those who were actively engaging in the sin and those who aren’t. Paul used the terms arsenokoitai (man-bedders) and malakoi (soft ones). Both the English Standard Version and the AIC report correctly point out that these two terms refer to active and passive participants in gay sex (AIC p. 6, footnote 4). Thus, the Bible doesn’t forbid the use of the term “homosexual;” rather, it says those who are engaging in the sinful activity of gay sex will not inherit the kingdom of God. If a man described himself as a “man-bedder,” then we would rightly keep him from the ministry because that implies that he is still engaging in that activity. But “homosexual” can just mean that a person has sinful inclinations or desires. In fact, if you look up the word “homosexual” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the primary definition is, “relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex.” This is what makes the middle phrase of the amendment so perplexing: it is in effect saying that even if you testify that you are not arsenokoites or malakos, the things that the Bible says you shouldn’t be known as, you are still forbidden from entering the ministry if you use this different word, “homosexual.”
Therefore, the amendment simply cannot be referring to the use of one and only one word to describe oneself, namely, “homosexual.” This would be oddly specific given the existence of other words one could use, and would fly in the face of both the AIC and RPCES reports commissioned and commended by the church, which either used that word or advised against policing the usage of words like it.
If Not Terms, Then Overture 15 Bans Sin
But perhaps the amendment does not refer to the use of a specific word to describe oneself, but rather uses a specific word to describe a sin struggle. Read this way, “describe themselves as homosexual,” would refer to a description of homosexual sin, as in, a man who has shared about his sin struggle with others. If this is the case, what sins are referred to? Does it refer to sexual acts or sexual temptations? If sexual acts, then the Westminster Standards and our BCO coupled with the other two amendments in O29 and O31 already safeguard against this. Moreover, there is no evidence of any elder in the PCA who has described himself as such or of any elder in the PCA who has stated that those who have an ongoing struggle with committing immoral sex acts should be in ministry, even if repentant. Those who believe or teach such things either have left our denomination or never were a part of it.
There aren’t any practicing homosexual pastors or elders in the PCA (unless they are concealing it), nor should there be. Neither are there pastors in the PCA who celebrate homosexuality or want to bring “queer treasure” into heaven as one proponent of Overture 15 has asserted. My article titled “Misconceptions about Homosexuality in the PCA” details all this. When I wrote that article I was doing so as the person who represented my presbytery to the SJC in the Greg Johnson case, though I couldn’t reveal it at the time. I knew what I was talking about because I had been through mountains of material, conversed multiple times with Johnson, and made arguments before the SJC. The SJC went through the same material I was summarizing in my article, including direct responses to their questions by TE Johnson. They also read over all the same arguments about language and identity that are being presented now by proponents of Overture 15, as they were used by the complainant, the complainant’s representative, and other presbyteries and sessions included in the record of the case. Having heard my arguments and read through all the material, they denied the complaint on its substance, not on any technicality as some have said. They did not find any substance to the charges levied by the complainant, his representative, and multiple presbyteries and sessions, whose accusations were included in the record of the case. There is no Gay Boogeyman in the PCA, and all attempts to uncover one so far have come up empty handed.
And yet, if this amendment does refer to gay sex acts, and we should rightly support safeguarding the ministry from such a thing, this amendment is too confusing and imprecise to accomplish it. In fact, this is why the Overtures committee recommended answering with reference to Overture 29, since Overture 29 coupled with our teachings on the seventh commandment in the larger catechism already give us that safeguard. If this amendment refers to gay sex acts, then it should be rejected for being redundant and for using imprecise language that threatens to paint with too broad of a brush.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
But this amendment doesn’t refer to gay sex acts, at least not directly. None of the proponents are arguing this. And we have already shown above that it cannot logically refer to just the word “homosexual.” Thus, the amendment must either be broader than the word itself (including other terms like "gay"), or the use of the term "homosexual" must refer to the concepts it contains. Since we've already shown that it can't be the former, because it isn’t in the text of the amendment, it must be the latter: referring to the concept of homosexuality. Therefore, what this amendment will actually do is to prohibit the description of homosexual desires and temptations. A man must not describe himself as even being tempted by this sin broadly, either to the sex acts themselves or an attraction to those of the same sex, or he will be disqualified from ministry. This forbids candidates for ministry and eldership from being honest about their sin struggles. Since the verb "describe" does not have an indirect object, the amendment is effectively saying that he cannot admit this struggle to himself, to a pastor or counselor, or even to God. If you describe yourself as homosexual– as someone who has “sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex,” as Webster defines it– even if doing so privately to trusted persons or even to God, because the amendment does not excluded those instances, you are disqualified from ministry in the PCA. This in effect prohibits any same sex attracted person from being an elder in the PCA unless he lies to himself, God, and the church, or is completely cured of such desires. The text of the amendment doesn’t offer any qualification. It simply says “describe themselves as homosexual.” It doesn’t say when, how, or to whom. As the amendment is written, it states that if you experience same-sex attraction, you cannot admit it, or you cannot be an elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Overture 15 Contradicts the AIC on Confessing Sin
Given this, the amendment proposed by Overture 15 directly contradicts what the AIC has said about the need to be honest about one’s sin. They state, “Nevertheless, being honest about our sin struggles is important. While Christians should not identify with their sin so as to embrace it or seek to base their identity on it, Christians ought to acknowledge their sin in an effort to overcome it. There is a difference between speaking about a phenomenological facet of a person’s sin-stained reality and employing the language of sinful desires as a personal identity marker. That is, we name our sins, but are not named by them,” (p. 11, lines 18-23). The AIC says that being honest about your sins is important, and that confessing your sin is not the same as identifying with it or embracing it. This amendment fails to make that crucial distinction and even prevents that life-giving honesty from occurring.
Overture 15 Contradicts the AIC on Eligibility for Ministry
The AIC report states, “Insofar as such persons display the requisite Christian maturity, we do not consider this sin struggle automatically to disqualify someone for leadership in the church,” (p. 31, lines 29-31). If my analysis is correct and this amendment forbids describing oneself as someone who struggles with SSA, then any person who struggles with SSA is ineligible for office in the church. Yet, this directly contradicts the AIC. The struggle may disqualify, but does not do so automatically. It depends on the person’s maturity and growth in grace. But this amendment would ban anyone who experiences SSA from holding office in the PCA.
Overture 15 Would Ban Members of the AIC
What makes this amendment even more mystifying is that it would exclude from ministry men who helped write the AIC report that proponents of this amendment commend. If that seems hard to wrap your head around, you aren’t alone because it is a logical inconsistency. How can folks praise a report that written by a committee that includes two men who describe themselves as homosexual and at the same time propose this overture that forbids men from eldership who describe themselves as homosexual? What will they say about those two men from the AIC committee? Are they to be put on trial if it passes? I surely hope not!
Conclusion: Vote Against Overture 15
This logical conundrum of excluding AIC members is another example of why this amendment is so problematic. It paints with too broad of a brush and it is too restrictive in who it will admit, leaving out qualified and experienced men who are called by God to office in Christ’s Church. This is the logical conclusion of what this amendment is and what it will do if it becomes a part of the BCO. And that is why it was rejected by the Overtures Committee, and why 768 commissioners voted against it who voted for Overtures 29 and 31.
The response to the issues I’ve pointed out should be to let the amendment to BCO 7 proposed by Overture 15 fall into the wastebasket of history. It is too problematic to be fixed. The amendments proposed by Overtures 29 and 31 are good enough. Vote no on “Item 1: Amend BCO 7” in your presbytery. Let’s then approve Items 4 and 5, amendments that clearly have an overwhelming consensus, and move on in unity, love, and gospel ministry together having done our duty to safeguard the ministry.
