Maybe we should vote no? Reason #7

Reason #7 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37: If an Officer or Candidate is committed to the Scriptures and the Confession’s ethics for sexuality, then how they self-identify or the language they use should be considered a matter of conscience. 

The controversy over how someone self-identifies and whether they use the term gay Christian can be compared to the New Testament example of whether Christians were allowed to eat meat offered to idols. I realize that many would disagree with this equivalence, but the comparison is very clarifying.

In the first century, many believed the subject of meat offered to idols was a gospel issue. Jewish Christians often believed that to eat meat offered to idols was to commune and participate with demons (1 Corinthians 10:14-23). Even though Paul agreed with that in this passage, elsewhere Paul said that eating in an idol’s temple was not wrong as long as it did not make a weaker-conscienced brother sin (1 Corinthians 8:5-13). This means that there were times when Paul said it was okay, and other times when he said it was not okay.

The resolution of this apparent discrepancy is that Paul affirmed the principle of conscience. People should follow the conviction of their conscience, even if their conscience was not informed to full maturity (Romans 14:5).

Some Gentile Christians believed that Jesus was the revelation of the one true God, and they could freely eat meat offered to idols because pagan gods were in fact not gods at all. They believed Christians were free in Christ to eat everything to the glory of God. Paul agreed with their conviction. It was the most biblically mature assessment of the situation.

But Paul also disagreed with a mature Christian’s flaunting of their freedom in front of others whose consciences were bothered by the practice. Instead, Paul affirmed that they needed to act in love, championing the consciences of the people who he described as “weak” (Romans 15:1). Paul also expressed his own conviction that if his behavior hurt relationships within the family of God, he would never eat meat again.

Paul’s most thorough treatment of this conflict is found in Romans 14:1—15:7. The summary is that Paul calls both sides of the conflict to love and take responsibility for the faith and consciences of the people you disagree with. We are to believe the best in other believers. We are to live as though the other’s faith in Christ matters more than the argument over which we disagree.

There are two questions that Paul asks in Romans 14 that also question us today. These two questions put us in the right spot to engage in this discussion about self-identity and language. First, Romans 14:4:

Romans 14:4  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Both sides report to Jesus. And Jesus will make people on both sides stand. In this dispute over whether someone should be honest about the fact that they experience non-straight attractions, neither side is denying the absolute lordship of Jesus. Jesus is lord of both, and Jesus will make both stand before the Father. We cannot judge the other, lest we find ourselves opposing Jesus, who has already justified them and will vindicate them.

The second question is in Romans 14:10-12:

Romans 14:10-12  ¹⁰ Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; ¹¹ for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."  ¹² So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Don’t you know that God is going to judge you on the last day based on how you treat your brothers in God’s family? This is consistent with Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46). If you condemn your brother, you will be judged.

In this discussion, we should not exclude the other side. Doing so would exclude people that Jesus loves. As a church, we should affirm the right of both positions as allowable. But the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 exclude people that Jesus does not want to exclude, we should reject these BCO changes. This doesn’t mean that we should stop talking about faithfulness and accountability in this area for all of our Officers. Instead we should engage in fellowship and conversations with each other to ensure that we are honoring each other and helping each other walk in faithfulness to our shared standard of righteousness in the area of sexuality.

Here are my posts that go further into the reasons to vote no on the PCA Overtures:
A Vision
Reason #1
Reason #2
Reason #3
Reason #4
Reason #5
Reason #6
Reason #7