Where does the failure of O15 leave the PCA?

By Derek Radney, February 10, 2023. Orginally published at Derek Radney’s Reflections, February 8, 2023.

As soon as the AIC Report on Human Sexuality came out in the Spring of 2021, two things were quickly revealed.

First, the PCA was not having  the sort of disagreement and division that many thought we were having. Early on, many voices alleged that Greg Johnson, Memorial Pres, and large swaths of the PCA were denying our standards in regard to sin and sanctification. 1 But as soon as people were able to read and respond to the report, it became clear that PCAers were not denying the Reformed understanding of these doctrines. 2

Second, the Report revealed the real division in the PCA centered on terminology and how one should and may talk about his or her experience of same-sex desire.3 Even though the AIC Report explicitly states, “[How] persons express themselves is not finally determinitive of their identity.”4 People on both sides pointed to one line: “In view of the twin dangers of misunderstanding and syncretism, we believe it is generally unwise to use the language of gay Christian.”5

Where we are now:

Despite protests to the contrary about the continued threat of “Side-B theology,” the disagreement over terminology remains the real dividing line in the PCA. The first round of overtures (2021 O23 & O37) seeking to address the controversy failed because they did not seek to address the substance of the issues Revoice raised for us. Several phrases were unclear and would have been used in harmful ways by those who hold the extreme position that the experience of SSA (or public knowledge of someone’s experience with SSA) is disqualifying for office, a position that goes against the Study Report and Scripture.

But in this second round of overtures, because elders from different wings of the denomination came together to find consensus language, the substance of the issues raised have been addressed by the overwhelming support and passage of O29 & O31 by the presbyteries and the almost certain passage at GA this summer.

We now have the opportunity to end the bitter division that has plagued our denomination for several years. 

Where do we go from here?

The reported failure of O15 which seeks to control the language officers use to tell their story or describe themselves presents us with two options, and it is unclear to me which path the PCA will take.

The first path is to accept that we have disagreement about language. We could move on from this BCO battling knowing that we agree it is “generally unwise” to use the term “gay Christian” and that the term “orientation” can be confusing and misleading. We could accept that some believe this doesn’t rule out the usage of these terms in every circumstance while others believe the terms necessarily make a statement about a person’s identity (or, some would insist, about a person’s “ontology”). I pray we accept that fact that we have this disagreement and pursue a path of peace for the sake of unity and mission, recognizing the stakes are much lower than initially alleged when this controversy began. The constant debate has seriously hindered the work of presbyteries and is fostering a growing distrust. 

The other path we could take involves taking up more proposed BCO changes that attempt to restrict language. It’s unclear how large a portion of the denomination supports this path. One could look at the final vote on O15 to gauge the split (mathematically that could settle at anywhere between 33-50%), but that actually might give us an inflated picture given that some believed supporting O15 this year a worthwhile endeavor since no BCO change on the matter had yet been passed.

Whatever path we take, everyone must be honest about the debate we’re having. It is, at the very least, severely misguided and, at worst, dishonest to continue to insist that large numbers of PCA elders have embraced ideas about sexuality that violate our standards on sin, identity, sanctification, etc. The overwhelming support of O29 & O31 and the commendation of the Sexuality Report, on top of recent BCO clarity on marriage, the Nashville Statement, and SJC rulings, all demonstrate that the PCA is holding firm to our doctrinal standards.

Whatever path we take, we need to be honest about the presence of not a few elders that disagree with the Sexuality Report, not regarding sin and sanctification, but in regard to their belief that SSA (or public knowledge of it) disqualifies a man from church office. I said early on in this controversy that we cannot ignore the existence of these extreme voices, yet the comments on FB groups and Twitter to this effect are overlooked by those who advocated for O15. We need to start correcting those voices and, at times, enacting formal discipline against those that make explicitly derogatory comments towards those fighting their sin.

Hope for a Unified and Mission Focused PCA

With rumors of a third round of overtures proposing BCO changes to enforce language requirements for officers regarding their sexual struggles, my hope is that presbyteries will reject new proposals and allow the denomination to rest, reflect, and talk in order to restore trust, something much more likely to happen if we’re not battling over proposed BCO changes. If new overtures on terminology get sent up by any presbyteries, I hope the OC and the GA will answer them in the negative so we do not have to spend another year checking the excel spread sheet like a cable news channel covering an election. We’d very likely only get the same results (~60/40 split).

We have other work to do, and we need to get on with it without having to have so much of our energy and attention on this in question. We have a high degree of agreement. Sadly, some disagreement remains over the wisdom of particular terms, but we ought to let each man be convinced in his own mind before the Lord, to let our presbyteries and sessions watch over our officers, and to let God’s Spirit guide us into greater unity of mind in unexpected ways in the future.

1 In regard to our doctrine of sin, there is widespread agreement that distorted desires are themselves sinful, even when arising prior to and apart from a conscious act of the will, that our fundamental identity is in Christ rather than in our sinful desires, and that we must repent of our actions and our sinful desires.

Further, in regard to our doctrine of sanctification, there is widespread agreement that a goal of sanctification is the diminishment and potential end of the occurences of particular sinful desires, that we can see substantial progress in holiness, and that progress in holiness as a whole will likely be slow and uneven.

2 We should admit that many PCA elders have not been as clear on the Reformed understanding of these doctrines as they should have been. But this failure of clarity has not only been true of those in the missional wing of the PCA.

3 Several terms seem to be the focus of controversy here: “gay,” “homosexual,” “orientation,” and for some, even “same-sex attracted.”

4 Page 2329, line 25-26, in the paragraph “On Language” in the section on terminology.

5 Page 2330, line 28-29, in the paragraph “Gay and Gay Christian” in the section on terminology.