Overture 23: A Potential Constitutional Quagmire

By Larry Hoop, December 10, 2021.

Overture 23 proposes that BCO 16-4 be amended as follows:

“Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.”

It should be noted that this proposal, unlike most proposed changes to the BCO, was not examined by the Committee on Constitutional Business (the CCB), of which I am a member. All overtures coming from presbyteries must be submitted prior to the annual meeting of the CCB so that we can advise as to their compatibility with the constitution. On occasion, a proposal generated during the Assembly (as this one was) will call for a special meeting of the CCB at the Assembly at the request of the Committee proposing it. It’s likely that the lateness of the time in the Assembly docket when this particular proposal reached its final form prompted the Overtures Committee to forgo this important step. Normally the CCB will express its opinion that a proposal either is or is not in conflict with other parts of the PCA constitution (the Westminster Standards plus the BCO itself), but at times we’ve found it necessary to express our concern that a proposal is not internally consistent or clear and, on a few rare occasions, that its adoption could generate enough confusion to create “a constitutional quagmire.” It seems to me that this is just such a proposal. 

There is no question that the text of this proposed BCO change is difficult to understand. TE Brent Horan, in his article “The Definitive Meaning of Overture 23” spends some 7,000 words trying to explain it. He correctly points out the main difficulty stems from the longer parenthetical statement in the proposal. Horan offers an explanation of how that parenthetical statement coheres with the proposal as a whole, the heart of which is found in the section of his article entitled “a little grammar”:

“The parenthetical statement gives examples of how a man might “profess an identity.” The placement of the parenthetical does not mean that the use of such words undermines their identity in Christ just by simply saying certain phrases. For that to be the case, the parenthetical would have to be placed after “undermines or contradicts their identity.” 

Horan argues that the parenthetical statement is adverbial  ( answering the question “how?”) and therefore must modify the verb “profess”. But there are two problems with this view: (1) one would expect the parenthetical statement to be placed in closer proximity to the verb it modifies and (2) one would expect that the substantive phrases enclosed in the parentheses (“’gay Christian,’ ‘same sex attracted Christian,’ ‘homosexual Christian,’ or like terms”) would be introduced by a phrase that more clearly identifies them as answering the adverbial “how” question (e.g., “by means of”) rather than “such as”. 

So then, what exactly is the nature of this parenthetical statement? 

It seems to me that the interpretive key is the introductory phrase such as. “Such as” is used to introduce examples of the closest noun. In this case the closest noun is “identity,” so the phrases in the parenthetical statement don’t suggest how an identity is professed, but rather examples of the identity being professed. 

And here the identity being expressed is a particular kind of identity, an identity “that undermines or contradicts their identity [i.e., the identity of those making the profession] as new creations in Christ . . . “Horan rightly points out that this is a restrictive relative clause, it limits the sort of identity the proposal concerns. But he then wrongly asserts that, as the parenthetical statement occurs after “identity” rather than after “undermines or contradicts their identity,” it bears no relationship to the latter phrase. For in this instance, the word “identity” itself is restricted in meaning by its modification by that latter phrase.

A mundane example will demonstrate the point. The statement “NFL quarterbacks (such as Tom Brady and Peyton Manning) who have been named league MVP . .”  would be perfectly acceptable to any NFL fan. But the statement “NFL quarterbacks (such as Andy Dalton and Teddy Bridgewater) who have been named league MVP . . .” would leave the same fans scratching their heads because neither Dalton nor Bridgewater has ever been named league MVP. The fans in question would recognize that’s what the statement suggests, because the noun phrase “NFL quarterbacks” is restricted in meaning by the relative clause “who have been awarded the league MVP trophy” and the examples given refer to the noun phrase as restricted, regardless of where they are placed in the statement - just as is the case in the proposed BCO amendment.

That brings us to the crux of the interpretive problem. As it is written, the proposal identifies anyone who professes to be a “gay Christian”, a “same sex attracted Christian” or a “homosexual Christian” as an example of someone who has adopted an identity that undermines or contradicts his identity as a new creation in Christ.  Yet, in the very same sentence, we read that the way one contradicts his identity as a new creation in Christ is “either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.”   Does the proposal call us to assume that everyone who identifies as a “gay Christian”, a “same sex attracted Christian”, or a “homosexual Christian” automatically violates at least one of those conditions? Or is the parenthetical statement totally extraneous to the meaning of the proposal, and if so, why is it there at all?

Now I know some may protest that this is an unnecessarily technical argument and that I’m straining at gnats. But consider this: if BCO 16 is amended in the way Overture 23 has proposed, sessions and presbyteries will have to apply its provisions whenever they examine candidates for church office, and the SJC will need to interpret it when the inevitable complaints arise from such examinations. And all they will have to guide them will be this very unclear text. 

And so you have a “constitutional quagmire.” The best way to avoid it is to defeat this proposal, and, if you believe the BCO should address this issue, construct something better.

TE Larry Hoop is serving his fourth four-year term as a member of the CCB. He served as CCB Chairman from 2014-17 and is currently CCB Chairman.

Previous
Previous

A Good Word 12.14.21

Next
Next

Confession Thursday 12.9.21