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
No comments:
Post a Comment