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

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #6

Reason #6 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  Both sides of this argument are striving for biblical faithfulness, and therefore both sides of the argument should be allowed to stay in the PCA.

The BCO changes in Overtures 23 and 37 seek to prevent and remove Officers if they are publicly known to experience same sex attraction. People against and in favor of these changes are fully committed to the Bible’s teaching on sex. Both sides of this argument believe that sex is designed by God to be experienced in male + female marriage. Both sides of this argument believe that all sexual activity and sexual fulfillment outside of marriage (in thought, word, and deed) is against God’s design at creation and should be resisted, avoided, and repented of. Both sides want to have Officers who are honest and holy in their walk with Jesus and in their leadership of the church.

The changes to BCO 16 from Overture 23 and to BCO 21 and 24 from Overture 37 address the issues of identity, self-profession, and reputation of Officers and Candidates for Office. Both sides of this debate have biblical reasons for their positions, and both are prioritizing different elements of biblical teaching to make their case. The question is whether the PCA should have ordained men who are known publicly as being committed to Jesus and refraining from all sex outside of man + woman marriage, but who experience romantic attraction to other men (even though they do not act upon those attractions).

To vote yes on the Overtures is to say that Officers cannot self-identify or be publicly known as experiencing same sex attraction. The overtures list three reasons for saying these men are not qualified.

1. These men are accused of denying the sinfulness of fallen desires.
2. These men are accused of denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification.
3. These men are accused of failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.

These are serious accusations. If these accusations are true, then there is certainly biblical grounds for concern about the strength and/or content of the faith of these men, especially as officers. But are these accusations true or fair?

These overtures accuse all men who experience same sex attractions, even if they are committed to Jesus and refrain from all sex outside of man + woman marriage. But they go farther that simply accusing. These overtures actually condemn every one of these men. This goes too far. It is appropriate to ask questions of sexuality to ensure their being faithful. But it is not appropriate to convict them as guilty simply because they are being honest about their temptations, especially when they are committed to the same standard of faithfulness that all our straight Officers have taken.

For this reason alone, the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 should be rejected. We need to ensure accountability for all our Officers, but a blanket condemnation without trial is not appropriate, as these BCO changes would install.

What motivates those who oppose these overtures? Many want these men ordained in the PCA for at least two reasons:

1. These men should not have to hide this part of their lives. Every Officer in the church needs accountability, encouragement, support, and challenge. These are essential parts of biblical fellowship. These are essential for every Officer, whether the Officer experiences same-sex temptation or hetero-sexual temptation. All officers need this kind of robust fellowship to keep sexual sin from reigning over them. It is not safe for any Officer of the church to be alone with any sin. No one against these overtures denies the sinfulness of all sex outside of man + woman marriage. No one against these overtures denies the reality and hope of progressive sanctification. No one against these overtures is failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over sin in all its forms. Rejecting these BCO changes is motivated by a desire to allow all Officers to be able to be honest about this part of their story, so that they can experience the blessing of fellowship in the body of Christ. These BCO changes will have the effect of driving Officers into isolation, because as long as they are not “known by reputation” or “self-profess” they are not disqualified. This is a dangerous precedent to set.
   
   
2. The PCA is uniquely gifted to clearly proclaim to the church and to the world that if you are not straight, if you experience any sexual attractions that do not line up with God’s creation design for married, one man + one woman sex, you can still become a Christian, you can still be a Christian, and if you are faithful to Jesus you can serve and even lead in His church. The PCA is uniquely gifted with theological nuance that can differentiate between someone’s sexual attractions and their sin. The PCA has the theological sophistication to differentiate between the brokenness of the Fall and battle against temptation. The PCA has the theological sophistication to separate temptation from the sin of giving in to that temptation. We offer hope and the gospel promise of fruitfulness and maturity for our brothers and sisters who are called to singleness. We offer hope and the gospel promise of fruitfulness and maturity for all who follow Jesus in a mixed-orientation man + woman marriage. We want to have mature non-straight men as pastors as examples to the flock that faithfulness to Jesus is possible and that abundant life often includes extreme denial. By rejecting these overtures, the PCA would be powerfully demonstrating that our sexual attractions are not the basis of our identity. Our faith in Christ is the core of our identity. Whether someone is straight or not, if they are committed to Jesus and have the mature character and gifts required for an officer, then they can lead and serve in the church. It is ironic that the way for us to affirm that our identity is in Christ is by being MORE open about our celibate same-sex attracted heroes of the faith, NOT BEING LESS open. We are first and most importantly children of the living God. Having men as Officers in the church who experience same sex attraction but who are committed to celibacy or are committed to be faithful to a woman in marriage... this will show the non-straight Christians in our churches and the non-straight non-Christians in our communities that Jesus welcomes them and calls them to a life of grace and holiness. Having same-sex attracted leaders in the church demonstrates that this life following Jesus is abundant.

The concerns for policing the faithfulness of Officers and Candidates who experience same-sex attraction go way too far in these BCO changes. The blanket judgment rendered without inquiry is not consistent with gospel community, or with the weakness-laden reputations of the Apostles themselves (see reason #2 above). 

Instead, the PCA has an opportunity to honor those who are faithful to Jesus by becoming eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). We can instead give these brothers the support and encouragement they need for their sacrificial obedience to Jesus. We can allow them to be honest about this part of their stories.

For these reasons, we should reject the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37. 

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

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #5

Reason #5 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  The term “Gentile” in the New Testament shows that it is okay to use the phrase “gay Christian” because the Apostles (inspired by God) used an adjective for Christians that often meant “sexually immoral, sinful, and far from God.”

First, there are passages that make it clear that “Gentile” was a derogatory name, describing someone whose lifestyle was offensive to God. It was a dirty word because of the lifestyles that characterized the Gentiles who lived apart from the gospel.

Matthew 18:17  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

Galatians 2:15  We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners.

 

Ephesians 4:17-19  ¹⁷ Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.  ¹⁸ They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.  ¹⁹ They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

 

Ephesians 2:11-12  ¹¹ Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--  ¹² remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5  ³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;  ⁴ that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,  ⁵ not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God.

 

1 Peter 4:3-4  ³ For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.  ⁴ With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you.

It is abundantly clear that Jesus, Paul, and Peter used the term Gentile to describe people whose lives were sinful and debauched. They were cut off from the life of God.

Second, there are passages that demonstrated the shocking reality that the Gentiles believed and were receiving the blessings of salvation:

Acts 10:45-48  ⁴⁵ And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.  ⁴⁶ For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,  ⁴⁷ "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"  ⁴⁸ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

 

Acts 11:1-3 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.  ² So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,  ³ "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."

 

Acts 11:18  When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

 

Acts 15:19-20  ¹⁹ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,  ²⁰ but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

 

Romans 9:30  What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;

These descriptions are so powerful because when the Gentiles became Christians, they didn’t stop being referred to as Gentiles! The term Gentile, which at one time only referred to people who were lost in sin and without hope, this term took on a second meaning, referring to people who had left that lifestyle and were now committed to Jesus and to following His laws.

This is exactly what the gay Christians who are officers in the PCA have done! These Pastors, Elders, and Deacons have renounced their sin and they have given themselves to Jesus as Lord and Savior. These have put their entire lives, including their sexuality, at the feet of Jesus. They have committed themselves to serve and follow Jesus in every area of their lives, especially with their sexuality.

Can't we note that in some ways, their commitment to Jesus is even more costly?  They have committed either to celibacy, or to commit to loving and serving the needs of one woman in a mixed orientation marriage.

Third and finally, there are passages that make it clear that “Gentile Christians” have equal status with Jewish Christians in the church.

 

Romans 3:29-30  ²⁹ Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,  ³⁰ since God is one-- who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Since the New Testament does not have a problem using the term Gentile to describe Christians who have been changed by the gospel, then we have a biblical precedent for using the term gay to describe people who experience temptations or have a past lifestyle that is associated with this kind of sin.

Therefore, we should reject the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 because they contradict the New Testament’s example and standard.

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

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #4

Reason #4 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  When Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung presented the Study Committee Report, it was said, that it would be unbiblical and against our Confessional Standards to discipline someone for using the language of “gay Christian.”

Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung presented their overview of the report at General Assembly. They are different voices in our denomination. In their presentation they said it would be unbiblical and against our confessional standards to discipline someone for using the language of “gay Christian.” Here is the quote from their presentation: 

All 7 members of the committee agreed. That first part of the statement 10 is pretty strong. It’s really saying, pastorally we really strongly advise against calling yourself a Gay Christian. But the “Nevertheless” is trying to get across the fact that you’re going beyond the Confession, and probably the Bible to take an English word and then say, “We’re going to discipline you over that, [over] that use of that [word].” We’re trying to say that people use these words differently. Their intentions are different. And therefore, what we really ought to do is we ought to use our pastoral tools to try to work with people rather than to simply say, “On the basis of the Confession, on the basis of the Bible, we can tell you you’re sinning by using that word.” We said, “No, we can’t go that far.” Some people will want to do that, and this is one of the things that will probably be debated. But I really think that statement 9 and 10 hit that balance pretty well because it’s really pretty unmistakable:  as a denomination, if you adopt this, we’re saying, “No. Pastorally, we’re really advising against that.”

It’s vital to understand the rationale of users of this term. We cannot discipline them without violating the Confession and the Bible itself, according to the authors of the study report itself.

Therefore, we should reject the BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 because they violate the intention of the authors of the Study Committee Report. 

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

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #3

Reason #3 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  The Study Committee Report on Human Sexuality Explicitly states that “the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.” 

The Study Committee Report does not allow for the exclusion of people who use the term “gay Christian.” Nor does it exclude people who do not want to use the term “gay Christian.” Parts of the report argue against using the term as unwise. The report recognizes that different people use the adjective gay in different ways for different purposes. It concludes by saying that both groups of people are to be allowed in the PCA. On page 30 it says: 

In view of the twin dangers of misunderstanding and syncretism, we believe it is generally unwise to use the language of gay Christian. Given this conclusion, how should we respond to fellow believers in our churches who may use such language? First, we ought not start from the assumption that they are being unfaithful or living in active rebellion to God. Rather, in the context of established relationships, pastors and leaders in the church ought to ask questions and seek to understand each individual’s story. Why do they use that language? Have they thought through the relative benefits and dangers? Noting the range of possible meanings of terms like gay and gay Christian, we would do well to seek understanding before imparting advice. In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.

The BCO changes recommended by Overtures 23 and 37 ought to be rejected because they violate the Study Committee Report. 

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

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #2

Reason #2 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  The argument to remove officers who are honest about their temptations contradicts the New Testament. 

The New Testament is clear that the past and present experience of its most faithful leaders includes struggles that may embarrass many. The New Testament has made public the past and ongoing struggles of its most mature leaders.

The Apostle Paul:

Romans 7:

     ⁷ I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." ⁸ But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.

     ⁹ I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

     ¹⁰ The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. ¹¹ For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

     ¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. ¹⁵ For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.¹⁶ Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ¹⁷ So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸ For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

     ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

     ²¹ So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²² For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, ²³ but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. ²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

     ²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

1 Timothy 1

     ¹² I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, ¹³ though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, ¹⁴ and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. ¹⁵ The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. ¹⁶ But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

 

The Apostle Peter:

Matthew 16

     ²² And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, "Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you." ²³ But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

 

Matthew 26

     ⁴⁰ And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping. And he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour? ⁴¹ Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

 

     ⁶⁹ Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." ⁷⁰ But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean." ⁷¹ And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." ⁷² And again he denied it with an oath: "I do not know the man." ⁷³ After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you." ⁷⁴ Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the rooster crowed. ⁷⁵ And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.

 

Galatians 2

     ¹¹ But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. ¹³ And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

The BCO changes in overtures 23 and 37 should be voted down because they go against the New Testament standard of honesty about the struggles of its leaders. To disqualify Officers of the PCA for being honest about the nature of their temptations is to go beyond the New Testament’s teaching and example. 

These changes will have the effect of pushing pastors who experience many forms of temptation into isolation and away from accountability. It will result in more moral failures among pastors who desperately need the freedom to be honest about the temptation that they experience. 

God inspired the New Testament to be written with its leaders’ failures forever recorded. This highlighted the grace of God in the gospel as the foundation and entrance and source of strength for all who follow Jesus. Non straight pastors, elders, and deacons communicate that God's grace welcomes non-straight men and women. It calls them to repent and follow Jesus. And it offers them a hard path that is filled with good works for them to walk in. 

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

Maybe we should vote no? Reason #1

Reason #1 to vote no on Overtures 23 and 37:  There is complete unity in the PCA about what Jesus teaches about sexual ethics. 

Every officer (TE, RE, and Deacon) agrees that all sex outside of a marriage between one man and one woman is against Scripture and against God’s design for human flourishing. Every officer agrees that lust is adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:28), it is sin, and it should be repented of.

Every officer (no matter their sexual desires or temptations) agrees that the life that Jesus calls all Christians to live is one of sexual holiness. The will of God for all believers is our sanctification, that we all abstain from sexual immorality; that each of us know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). All the officers in the PCA who experience same sex attraction believe this. This is a black and white issue in Scripture and in the Westminster Standards.

The BCO changes from Overture 23 and 37 should be rejected because they go beyond this Scriptural standard and they impose a standard of language-policing that is guilty of legalism. It is fine for someone to determine for themselves that they do not want to share the kinds of temptation they experience. But it is not acceptable for one person to disqualify another because he chooses to be honest about the kind of temptation he experiences, ESPECIALLY when the temptation is surrendered to Jesus and not acted upon.

The love of Jesus is powerful enough so that we don't have to split over this. We should welcome each other in the family of God and celebrate the work that God is doing through each of us.

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