What did eight years of organizational communication reveal? Well, thankfully, nothing terribly personal or scandalous — what has become public is mostly political. The messages show a highly-organized group comprised almost exclusively of pastors (teaching elders in PCA parlance). There are members, though how one becomes a member or who decides is never revealed. What the members received was lots of advice about how to get on committees deemed strategically important, how to vote on issues essential to the Partnership’s agenda, and who to vote for. This may sound banal, even benign, but the courts of the church are meant to be open, deliberative assemblies…,

Have you ever ended up at a party and felt as if you didn’t really belong? It may be that you had a right to attend that party. You had an invitation of sorts, but you didn’t really feel welcome and you didn’t really fit in. Things happened that seem to be guided by some unseen hand. Maybe people were dancing, but you knew none of the steps. You were at the party, but somehow not of the party. It’s almost as if there was a party behind the party.
To be honest, this is a bit how it feels for the ruling elder or small church pastor who finds himself at the big party-event known as the annual Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly. He comes ready to deliberate and vote, but something seems off, predetermined, stage-managed. The moderator (a powerful position) seems to have been preselected, for instance, often without opposition. An elite group appears to control things.
Maybe the elder tries to write off the sensation, chalking it up to his own inexperience, but the nagging feeling persists. He’s heard of shadowy groups who communicate by Facebook Messenger and marshal votes and voters. Commissioners stream in right before important votes as if by magic. How, he wonders, can they have an opinion on how to vote if they have not heard the debate? Is the General Assembly really a deliberative assembly as it’s supposed to be… like the local session and presbytery with which he’s familiar?
Now imagine that lowly elder’s reaction when he learns that rumors of a powerful party behind the party are true. The National Partnership is now out in the open, though not by its own design or on its own terms.
However one feels about the way the email cache (dubbed #PresbyLeaks) of the “confidential” group was revealed and distributed, it must be admitted that these emails (now surely viewed by thousands) contain troubling information.
What did eight years of organizational communication reveal? Well, thankfully, nothing terribly personal or scandalous — what has become public is mostly political. The messages show a highly-organized group comprised almost exclusively of pastors (teaching elders in PCA parlance). There are members, though how one becomes a member or who decides is never revealed. What the members received was lots of advice about how to get on committees deemed strategically important, how to vote on issues essential to the Partnership’s agenda, and who to vote for. This may sound banal, even benign, but the courts of the church are meant to be open, deliberative assemblies where issues and members are judged on their merits, not the advice of an unofficial council. Inordinate control of any court by a secretive group with no public face and no accountability runs counter to presbyterian principles.
One test of behavior and tactics in a church court is to ask the question: Is it scalable? In his magisterial commentary on the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Book of Church Order, the late Dr. Morton Smith wrote that though the courts of the church are graded, “all of these ‘courts’ are really presbyteries, each being composed exclusively of elders. One of the important implications of this fact is that all of the courts are of the same nature. The gradation is not based upon any hierarchy or office, but rather only on the portion of the Church that is represented.” If this is true, then what is appropriate for one court is appropriate for another. Do we really believe that a secret, well-organized faction, communicating and scheming privately and independently of other members of a local session or presbytery is conducive to harmony, unity, and understanding? Most elders would be horrified to think that members of a local church session would behave that way, so why would it be appropriate in the church’s highest court?
And what if a local church session or a presbytery witnessed members loitering in the hallway for large portions of a meeting, only to be summoned in by e-mail or text message in time to vote on something “really” important, their presence not be required for minor issues or maybe even for the debate on “important” issues?
Most would agree that such behavior is unseemly. The members of presbytery or the local session would likely lose respect for the lobby-lingerers and those who electronically summon them. Mistrust would ensue. And elders would lose faith in the system and each other. Sadly, the National Partnership’s emails reveal just such a scenario.
Read More

It will take great courage to break the left’s cultural taboos and take the heat for it. A society conditioned by Newspeak will be scandalized by the thoughtcrime of plain-spoken truth. The man who says things outside the Overton window will take the first arrows. He may sacrifice his reputation on the altar of honesty but will inspire others to add their voices. The more they speak, their accumulated voices move the Overton window, which reduces the cost for each new voice that enters their ranks.

The Overton window can shift when a motivated minority of influential voices are committed to speaking boldly on issues they care about.
The Overton Window is named after political analyst Joseph Overton, who noticed that public approval or disapproval drives policy. It represents what is generally believed to be right or wrong. At one time, our shared morality was derived from the Bible, which also tells us what happens when people reject it. They get the book of Judges, where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). In other words, biblical morality becomes mob morality. The social pressure to conform to mob morality is a big part of what many now call the Overton window.
The Overton window determines that some ideas are “mainstream” but other ideas are “extreme.” Ethics aren’t based on objective standards, it’s a popularity contest. And it’s fickle. Twenty years ago, supporting “gay marriage” was an extreme position, but it’s considered mainstream. The shift has been so dramatic that it’s considered extreme to oppose it. Social pressure is its animating force. Another example is mutilating the genitals of children. This was once a barbaric practice that only happened in third-world countries. Today, it’s done in the suburbs and covered by health insurance.
Labels are powerful. Most people want to be considered reasonable and moderate. No one wants to be an “extremist,” a “radical,” or an “alarmist.” Derogatory labels like these are effective tools in the hands of the thought police that cause people to feel shame for holding unfashionable views. Shame can drive public opinion, leading people to self-censor or adapt their views, lest they be cast into the outer darkness with the rest of the “deplorables.”
Moving the Overton Window
Since the Overton Window is a sociological phenomenon, no one directly controls it and everyone participates in it. That’s good news. Even better, it’s not a democracy. The majority doesn’t move the Overton window, the Overton window moves them. The window itself is moved by whoever has the courage and influence to move it in their direction. In recent weeks, we’ve seen how a motivated minority with a compelling message can make a difference.
For example, for over a year now, pearl-clutching and hang-wringing regime evangelicals have policed the Overton window with warnings about how “Christian Nationalism” will destroy our gospel witness in the public square. Pastor Doug Wilson, considered a chief proponent of Christian Nationalism (though he prefers to speak of “mere Christendom”), remains unmoved by the pressure to keep silent about Christ’s Lordship over government. 
Wilson’s affable demeanor combined with his reasonable articulation of biblical principles has earned him a significant following of ordinary Christians who are hungry for bold leadership. Wilson’s recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show was captioned in a tweet that said, “Pastor Doug Wilson is the Christian Nationalist they warned you about.” In less than 24 hours, this tweet gained over 4.6 million views. Wilson’s joyful courage is opening the Overton window to the right and forcing a needed debate about how Christian political engagement in the modern world. 
To give another example, Dusty Deevers was an obscure, Baptist pastor in Oklahoma who had the guts to defy the rhetorical overlords and move the window to the right. He advocated for Christian positions that are considered “controversial” because the Overton window deems them unacceptable. What were these controversial views? He believes abortion is murder and mothers who abort their children should be prosecuted as criminals, not treated as “second victims.” He also believes pornography is a social disaster that destroys marriages and increases sex addiction, human trafficking, and child exploitation.
Deevers had the nerve to campaign precisely on these issues and won a state senate seat. He then had the gall to keep his campaign promise by introducing legislation to outlaw pornography and abolish abortion in his state. Predictably, the outrage machine fired up, inviting derisive coverage from Rolling Stone and a mocking monologue from Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon.
This press coverage was an unexpected gift, however, because it forced a public debate that thrust his local message into a national debate. He exposed the harmful and well-documented effects of pornography. Videos of women smiling, dancing around, and celebrating their abortions gained a lot of traction. They aren’t victims. They are celebrating the murder of their own children. Some pro-life organizations were exposed for hypocritically lobbying against legislation that would abolish abortion. Deevers’ strategy to “go on the offense” highlighted wicked practices and exposed his detractors for defending them. His plain-spoken courage catapulted his long-shot candidacy to victory and gave his message national exposure that didn’t cost him a dime.
Since the Overton window can be pried open when a motivated minority of outspoken voices articulate an important message, what’s preventing us from doing it? This isn’t as impossible as it sounds.
Christians and the Overton Window
In public discourse, Christians easily fall into the trap of letting the Overton window “frame” how issues are presented. For example, every discussion of homosexuality must include some reference to how homosexuals were made in God’s image, though no discussion of any other sin requires such qualification.
Read More
Related Posts:

“In Christ alone, my hope is found…” So begins the hymn In Christ Alone which is by far one of the most sung songs of the faith in the last two decades. The hymn walks the singer through the story of the gospel and serves as a reminder that, because of His death and resurrection, the believer can have a sure and certain hope in Christ. And we should hope in Christ – as the song says, Christ is, ultimately, our only hope.
And yet we continue to place our hope elsewhere.
Sometimes, for example, we tend to place our hope in leaders. We come upon an election cycle and we tell ourselves that if so and so were elected, then things would be different. We would see policy change, betterment of society, and an affirmation of moral values. While some of those things may be true, ultimately, no political leader is worthy of our hope.
Or we might place our hope in a change of circumstances. We tell ourselves that if we just made a little more money, or just had a little more freedom, or just didn’t have to report to our current boss, then things would be so much better in life. And while there might be an element of truth in that, ultimately, we cannot place our hope in a chance of circumstance either.
Read More