The Definitive Meaning of Overture 23

By Brent Horan, a version of this article was originally published on July 26, 2021 by The Aquila Report

Anyone that has known me for more than four minutes knows that the title is a joke. No matter what comes below, there will be some, if not many, who will take issue with what I’m calling “The Definitive Meaning of Overture 23.” Though the title is a joke, what follows is not. And the hope is that what is laid out will be of some help in cleaning up the muddy puddles that Overture 23 (“O23” from now on) seems to be swimming in. Part of me hopes that this article is completely unnecessary and that the overture is clear enough for the average reader to understand. Sadly, what I’ve seen flying around on social media tells me otherwise. 

At the outset, I’d like to simply say that no language can accomplish what some would hope an overture, like O23, would accomplish. As much precision as we wish we could bring to our language, it does not have the ability to accomplish what sessions and presbyteries can, and should, in the examination of men for office. I think that if we could understand this important point, it would be much simpler and easier to come to language that would garner unity. I know, that’s fantasyland talk, so I’ll just move on.

A Brief History of the Language of Overture 23 at GA

In general, it seems that it is not always the best practice to share the details of the deliberative process. I aim to be circumspect and wise in what I include and exclude in this highly selective history. Most people only see the end result and do not get to see all the twists and turns along the way. In this instance, I believe it is important to get some of the backstory of how O23 arrived at its final form. Understanding the genesis of the language might be helpful in bringing some clarity. 

The original overture read as follows: 

“Men who self-identify as a “gay Christian,” “same-sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like term shall be deemed not qualified for ordination in the Presbyterian Church in America.” 

In the OC, a substitute motion was offered and amended to say, 

“Men who are known by reputation or self-profession according to their remaining sinfulness (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction, same sex desire, and homosexuality) shall be deemed not qualified to hold office in the Presbyterian Church in America (BCO 21-4; 24-1).” [1]

After hearing much of the concerns of the men in the OC, which I resonated with, I offered this substitute: “Men who identify in such a way that undermines or negates their new identity as new creations in Jesus Christ shall be deemed not qualified to hold office in the PCA.” This seemed to be a concise summary of what many were saying were their concerns and why the PCA needed an amendment to the BCO like this. For various reasons, one of which is that we were at the end of our ropes in the discussion, this substitute failed. Soon after that, the OC voted to recommend the original substitute and I announced a minority report that would be based on my above, failed substitute.

A few hours later, I sat with my buddy, Jim Weidenaar, and he helped me craft the beginnings of what I thought would be a fuller and stronger overture presented in a minority report. We wrote out various versions, tackling the issues from different angles and settled upon this for the night:  

“Men who embrace an identity for themselves that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Jesus Christ, deny the sinfulness of their corrupted nature, or deny the reality and hope of gospel change by the power of the Holy Spirit, shall be deemed not qualified to hold office in the Presbyterian Church in America. Nevertheless, men who express honest testimony of past and present indwelling corruption, which they are seeking to mortify in the context of gospel ministry, should not be disqualified from holding office on that basis.”

If you had been listening to the OC discussion and/or had been following the concerns of many in our midst over the past couple of years, you would see that this begins to get at the real issues with regard to how one identifies. It is not so much about the words one uses, but about what they mean by those words (I’ll say more about this below). I also think that we were getting closer to the spirit of the original overture.

 This “seed” language would need to be updated for the minority report and that was the plan, but, as everyone knows, we never made it that far (I’m partially very thankful for that!). There were rumblings of a desire to avoid a minority report, and many believed that we could get together and craft something that would be a good consensus overture. After various versions being tossed around with very capable men and some of the language being cleaned up, this is what was taken back to the OC for reconsideration:

“Men who would hold office in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who adopt an identity 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 suitable for ordained ministry.”

There was a lot of hope for this language. Many believed an overture along these lines would bring unity without compromising our doctrine or practice. The obvious concern was with regard to those who might seek to take on an identity in relation to their sin of SSA, so a parenthetical (see above after “fallen desires”) was included to give voice to that legitimate concern. There was a discussion of whether to include something like the parenthetical added later in the OC (see below after “profess an identity”), but, for various reasons, it was not included. Though there is great agreement that these phrases can be problematic, it did not seem necessary or wise to include them in something that might be in our constitution.

An important side note: Two, sometimes competing, concerns in the process of wrestling through this overture were (1) the concern to protect the church from the errors associated with adopting the language of the LGBTQ world, and (2) the concern to avoid creating an atmosphere that causes those who struggle with these kinds of sins and temptations to flee into silence and isolation, thus cutting them off from the fellowship and accountability that we all need in order to progress in mortification of our sin in Christ. Not compromising either of these concerns is difficult, but failure in regard to either would have significant consequences.

When the OC reconvened and decided to reconsider O23, some helpful amendments were proposed and one that was, perhaps, not so helpful (the added parenthetical, which I believe has caused much of the confusion). [2] Here is what we have now and will soon be coming to a presbytery near you:

“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.”

At this point, you might think that the history lesson was unnecessary, and perhaps it is for some, but I believe it is important to see the progression from the original to the final version. Also, I think this will help us see what the final version of O23 actually means. I’ll seek to answer that question now.

So What Does it Mean!?

Thankfully, no one seems to be concerned with the first sentence, so I’ll pass that by. On the other hand, the second sentence seems to have been misunderstood in multiple ways. Let’s break it down.

 It begins with an overarching statement concerning the issue of how people identify themselves and how that relates to their new identity in Christ. There are some ways that we can identify that would undermine or contradict our identity as new creations in Christ. There doesn’t seem to be any disagreement about that possibility, but one of the most difficult aspects about “identity” language is trying to clarify what we mean and don’t mean when we speak this way. In order to clarify when a man might be undermining his identity in Christ, three qualifying statements are offered. If one understands their identity in such a way that denies the “sinfulness of fallen desires,” denies “the reality and hope of progressive sanctification,” or that leads them to fail “to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions,” then they have undermined or contradicted their identity in Christ. 

Many of us believed that these reached the heart of the issues and concerns related to one’s identity. They are all errors that are departures from the system of doctrine described in our Standards, as the AIC report pointed out. The force of putting this language in the BCO would be to say that these departures are vital to the system of doctrine and therefore disqualify a man from holding office. 

I have heard and read it said that this overture says that men who identify as “gay” are not qualified to hold office in the PCA. My response to that is: it depends. I have had more conversations about the terms “identity” and “identify” than I care to talk about. Some think that these terms have obvious meanings, but I think something that is forgotten is that a word does not have meaning apart from context. Context determines the meaning of a term. That is one of the main reasons for the three qualifying statements about what it means to identify in a way that undermines someone’s identity in Christ. Without the qualifying statements, the meaning of “identity” is not tethered to anything other than the imagination of the reader. [3]

Overture 23 does not say that a man who says, “I’m gay,” cannot hold office. If the man simply means that he experiences same-sex attraction, believes it to be sinful, believes that God can change him, and is seeking to mortify his sin, then he is not disqualified from holding office simply because he experiences/struggles with SSA. I may question why this man is choosing to use this language and whether it is communicating what he desires to communicate to his audience, but the use of the term would not disqualify him. And my questions would reflect the nature of terminology as a wisdom issue (precisely where the AIC report places it). [4]

Something that could have brought some clarity to this point would have been the inclusion of a sentence from the “seed-form” of the minority report. It said, 

“Nevertheless, men who express honest testimony of past and present indwelling corruption, which they are seeking to mortify in the context of gospel ministry, should not be disqualified from holding office on that basis.”

From my perspective, the essence of this clarifying statement was being assumed in the final version of O23 (especially the third qualifying statement), so it did not seem necessary. After seeing all of the confusion, I wish we had included something like it.

Admitting the presence of the indwelling sin of SSA is not professing an identity contrary to one’s identity in Christ. Some may think that the mere presence of this particular sin is enough to disqualify a man from ministry. Fair enough. I might not agree with that view, but I do understand the concern and the arguments that come with it. As of now, the PCA does not hold a view that would disqualify a man from ministry simply because of this struggle. Moreover, at GA a couple weeks ago, we affirmed, basically unanimously, the AIC report which says, “Insofar as such persons display the requisite Christian maturity, we do not consider this sin struggle automatically to disqualify someone from leadership in the church.” [5]

Perhaps something that is going to sound more controversial is that this overture does not disqualify someone who says that they are a “gay Christian,” etc. It might seem that the overture would disqualify a man on this basis, but that is probably because of a misunderstanding of the grammar. I’ll make the grammatical point in a moment, but let’s run this through with a couple hypotheticals first. 

Assume a man, who has been nominated for office, meets me for lunch and says, “I just want you to know that I am a ‘gay Christian’.” While it is my view that terminology like this should be avoided, simply saying this does not disqualify him. He might be disqualified, but I need to ask a few questions. If he says that he believes SSA to be sin (and don’t worry, I would ask detailed questions on this), that he believes that God can change him, and that he seeks to mortify that sin, then the issue isn’t his theology, it’s his terminology. And I would encourage him and request that he not speak this way of himself. If he persists, and says he must use that language, perhaps he is not ready to be an officer. However, that is not because he experiences SSA or has faulty theology, but because he lacks wisdom in this area and will cause confusion.

I believe a scenario like this is not very likely, but the point here is that the overture does not police certain words people use. Presbyteries and sessions will still need to do the hard work of examining candidates, asking the Lord to provide them with wisdom and discernment along the way. 

And this will cut both ways.

Assume a man tells me he “experiences/struggles with SSA.” He may have used the proper terminology that many of us want to hear, but it doesn't mean that his theology, or his understanding of his identity, isn't flawed. More questions will still need to be asked. 

To say it a little more bluntly, it’s not good enough to simply say, “He used the proper/approved terms. He’s qualified.” OR “He used improper/unapproved terms. He’s unqualified.” I think every elder knows this, implicitly.

And since I can’t go through every permutation along these lines, I simply commend the AIC report’s discussion of terminology that begins on page 29. [6]

Even after all that discussion, some may still think that, according to O23, the use of certain terms automaticallydisqualifies a man from holding office. This is probably because of the parenthetical statement, which is why I need to address the grammar.

A Little Grammar 

The parenthetical statement was added when the OC reconsidered O23 on Wednesday afternoon of General Assembly. Perhaps some read this and think that these are examples of phrases that, if used by a candidate, would immediately disqualify him from holding office. Not only do the hypotheticals above help in seeing that this is not the intent of the overture, but the grammar itself will not allow for it. 

The sentence begins: 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…”

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.” Even then, I’m not sure it would accomplish what some would like it to accomplish.

Also, as Jim Weidenaar pointed out to me the other day, the clause that begins, "that undermines..." is a restrictive relative clause (because it is not set off with a comma). This means that it gives information necessary for the complete identification of the noun modified. In this case, that noun is "identity." So the sentence refers not to each and every identity, and not even to the few examples of identities suggested in the parenthesis, but only to professed identities that do what is described in the rest of the clause.

That’s a fancy way of saying: the grammar does not allow for any particular ways of identifying to disqualify a man from ministry, only those ways that undermine or contradict one’s identity in Christ as laid out in the three qualifying statements. 

If some were hoping for an overture that restricted certain phrases and that, by the mere use of them, a man would disqualify himself from holding office, this overture does not accomplish it. 

The overture simply states, explicitly, what I believe to be, not only what Scripture, our Standards and the AIC report say, but also what all elders in the PCA believe (or should believe) with regard to our identity in Christ and how that relates to a man’s qualification to hold office.

Concluding Remarks

If you made it this far and if, at this point, you are thinking, “Well, that was pointless. That’s exactly what I’ve thought the overture meant!” My response is that it has been my experience that for every one of you there are three elders who have been confused by the overture, not to mention our lay people. I don’t blame them. These things are complicated and much of the confusion could probably be attributed to the dozens of articles floating about, offering competing views of O23, which now this article is numbered among! Regardless of that irony, hopefully, this article clears up at least some of our confusion.

Finally, an appeal to the presbyters who will be discussing and voting on this overture: Let’s at least understand what it is that we are voting on. If we can’t agree with what the overture means, then it’s probably best for us to vote it down and put some language together that will better serve the PCA. 

Brent Horan is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Senior Pastor of First Reformed Presbyterian Church in Penn Hills, Penn.

[1] Part of the language came from Overture 37.

[2] From the conversations I’ve had, the added parenthetical is a problem for many. If it had not been added, my hunch is that this overture would have passed almost unanimously on the floor. When you hear men objecting to the overture, it’s almost always with regard to the parenthetical. Among the concerns are the singling out one sin over others, not wanting to be word-police, and the problem of having these types of catchphrases in our constitution. Another concern is that the parenthetical seems to equate the terminology of "SSA" with "gay," though most people who use "SSA" do so precisely in order to distance themselves from the implications of "gay."

[3] Some have even argued that the use of terms like “identity” or “identify” in our constitution could be problematic. The level of confusion we are experiencing might prove that concern quite legitimate.

[4] See statement # 10 of the Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality (linked under footnote #5). Note however that when the Report says the use of terminology such as "gay" is a wisdom issue, it is not so in a neutral way, as if there are multiple equally valid terms one could use in different contexts. There is a clear wisdom bias against the term "gay" as usually implying a whole package of connotations at odds with the Christian worldview. Yet (or in the language of the Report, "Nevertheless..."), it is recognized that with certain audiences and contexts one might use terminology that would otherwise be avoided.

[5] https://pcaga.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/AIC-Report-to-48th-GA-5-28-20-1.pdf (see page 31). It should be noted that the report not binding.

[6] At GA, some of us got the impression that many commissioners did not make it this far in the report, or they simply reject the wisdom of the committee.