Written by Glenn D. Jerrell |
Thursday, July 28, 2022
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.

Introduction
When one is not a commissioner to a General Assembly (GA), the temptation to answer a speech while it is being given is absent because you don’t have the privilege of the floor. Listening to the proceedings at a GA is a true learning experience. That was my situation during the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). It is helpful to sit back and just take it all in. This article contains observations based on certain speeches on Overture 2 and Mike Myers’ two articles (here and here) published in the Aquila Report, as well as some historical reflections.
Overture 2, proposed to the 2022 GA of the OPC by the Presbytery of Ohio, approached abuse with a wide range of considerations that pastors, sessions, congregations, and presbyteries would find helpful in support of their gospel/shepherding ministries.
As an onlooker, it appeared that the opposition to Overture 2 by Mr. Myers and others ended up squandering a full hearing for the GA, the Ohio presbytery, and for themselves. How? The opposition sacrificed a comprehensive study of abuse, trading it for a partial, more limited consideration of the subject and leaving the larger controversy for another day. In the end, a substitute motion replaced the recommendations of the Presbytery of Ohio in Overture 2, which had also been supported by the Advisory Committee that examined the proposed overture. Adoption of the substitute meant that the church did not interact with all the points raised by both the presbytery and Mr. Myers, and further, the lengthy consideration of Overture 2 consumed so much time that important matters from other presbyteries received short shrift.
Mandate 1 of Overture 2I.A.1. Of Overture 2: “Collect, study, and develop resources related to the many forms of abuse that manifest themselves in the church (sexual, domestic, ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, psychological, etc.).”
The substitute that prevailed squeezed much of the life out of Overture 2. What was adopted certainly needs attention but what the 88th GA adopted eliminated consideration of a wide range of issues our churches are facing today. The church needs help and instruction in recognizing both the spectrum of sins involved in abuse and the too often overlooked need of supporting the victims of abuse. Tragically, some of the concerns in Overture 2 must wait for another day for GA help. The committee the GA established could serve the church well by identifying areas that need further study.
Mandate 2 of Overture 2I.A.2.: “Produce and recommend to the church resources to equip pastors, sessions, and presbyteries to recognize and respond to allegations and and instances of abuse in ways that honor Jesus Christ, comport with the laws of the land, and promote justice for victims and perpetrators.”
Overture 2 was carefully thought out and well written. It shows due diligence. How do we respond to claims of abuse? Do we doubt the accuser? Do we affirm the accuser? Do we take the claim seriously? How do we protect the accuser? And what about the accused? How does the church respond to the accused? Do we believe them? Do we take their claims seriously? We need resources. When an adult says I was sexually molested as a child and I still dream about it, how does the church respond? When do you bring in the police? How do we respond to a congregant who seeks help with a manipulating minister or ruling elder? We need to practice listening. Hearing the stories of abused OPC members, of those who have felt pushed out of the OPC, and of a multitude of other situations, the depth of the problems and the need for instruction becomes clearer and more urgent. What about those who don’t feel safe at a presbytery meeting, or in a local church. These situations exist, they are real life. The Presbytery of Ohio obviously has a passion for pastoring the people of God in a full, rich, and loving way. Perhaps this could become a class for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC?
Mandate 3 of Overture 2I.A.3. “Recommend to a future General Assembly, if appropriate, possible amendments to the Book of Church Order that more explicitly address the sin of abuse.”
Yes, there are some changes that might be considered to better serve in a wide array of abuse cases. Our current book provides adequate protection for the accused but what about the accuser? They also need consideration and protection. All need shepherding. What about protections for the victims of sin, that is a man or woman, a boy or girl, those in the pew? The subject matter of Overture 2 must not be forgotten because the OPC needs to address the pastoral questions raised by abuse. “Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them” (Ecc. 4:1 ESV).
The four grounds provided for Overture 2 (see below) provide the rationale for the recommendation of the Presbytery of Ohio.
Mandate B of Overture 2B. “Authorize the committee to invite Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse to assist the Committee as non-voting consultants.”
At the Assembly, the above quoted section of Overture 2 sparked a significant amount of controversy. Those in favor of II.B of Overture 2 ended up making a number of speeches during debate, but not as many as the opponents.  An amendment to replace the words “Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse” with “North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) officers” failed. But the substitute reveals gaps in biblical thinking. The substitute would have severely restricted who may be consulted. It was asked “will it be required that these Christians hold reformed convictions?” This substitute would have had the effect of failing to consult with
1) Reformed churches around the world;
2) men and women in the OPC holding the general office of believer; and
3) knowledgeable men and women in the church universal.
Does not the “NAPARC officers” amendment contain an implicit assertion that only Reformed Christian officers have contributions to be made on the subject of abuse, and that there are no contributions to be made by non-Christians, thus denying common grace?
The above gaps reflect a less than robustly biblical engagement with God’s people and the world around them. Each of the points above were mentioned in speeches made on the floor. The Assembly listened and the “NAPARC officers” substitute was defeated.
Ground 1 of Overture 2“Allegations and instances of misuse of power of various kinds (commonly termed ‘abuse’) have become increasingly known in our society and in the church. Reports, testimonies, and confessions of abuse raise complex legal, theological, and pastoral issues we cannot minimize, ignore or dismiss.”
The suggestion made that Overture 2 is possibly opening the doors of the OPC to a woke understanding of abuse is baffling.  Where are the signs of the OPC going woke? This suggestion sounds hollow. Is the article questioning whether large areas of the sin of abuse exist? The best way to avoid being accused of following the world is not to ignore issues raised by the world, but to outthink the world on these issues.
Ground 2 of Overture 2“The sins of abuse are expressly forbidden by Scripture and the Westminster Standards. (For example, see 2 Timothy 3:2–5; Jude 7; Exodus 21:15; Deuteronomy 22:25–27; also, WLC 135 and 139) and are especially heinous as they are ‘against the express letter of the law,’ ‘many commandments,’ ‘admit of no reparation,’ often involve various other aggravations (WLC 151); and have devastating and life-long effects on victims (2 Samuel 13:1–22).”
Is there a psychologizing of sin in this overture, especially in II.2 above, as has been suggested by Mr. Myers? The desire of Overture 2 is very plainly to identify abuse as sin and to deal with it biblically. There is no hint of separating abuse from sin. Mr. Myers’s article states, “There seems to be a movement in the church seeking to dislocate abuse from the category of sin.” Overture 2 seeks to deal with abuse as the sin that it is and nothing less.
We should not allow a justified opposition to our culture’s concern about micro-aggression to blind us to the real suffering that God’s people undergo in our fallen world — sometimes even at the hands of those who should be protecting them.
Ground 3 of Overture 2“It is the responsibility of the elders of Christ’s Church to exercise their authority, jointly and severally, to shepherd those under their care by guarding against such sinful behavior; to care for those victimized by the sins of others; and to exercise judicial discipline for such sins in terms of the goals expressed in Book of Discipline I.3.”
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.
Ground 4 of Overture 2“Giving careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse will help us recognize and remedy gaps in our theology and practice in order that we might more effectively minister to victims of abuse with the hope and consolation of the gospel and more readily confront perpetrators of abuse with the need for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.”
Are we not to bear the burdens of others? The multiple trials, complaints, and appeals in our assemblies are humbling. Are we informing our consciences with the study of these questions in the light of Scripture? Do we have a sense of rightness that exposes any self-righteousness? We need to discuss these issues in our judicatories to make us aware of the dangers of sin. It needs to be done in a brotherly and loving way without intensity and anger blasting those with whom we disagree and whom we shepherd. Good procedures are a blessing but they are not the purpose of our existence and they are not the gospel. Our imperfections reflected by the issues raised in Overture 2 deserve to be heard in our prayers of confession each Lord’s Day. Where we have fallen short in understanding the complexities and consequences of abuse, we need the assistance of Overture 2 to help us seek to recognize abuse and help those who are the oppressed, the wounded, and the traumatized.
As Rachael Denhollander suggests in a tweet, we need to give “…careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse….” There are “…incredibly important dynamics to understand with abuse, especially the way abusers wield the trauma they have caused, and the victim’s self-defense to flip the narrative.” There is much about abuse that we do not recognize as fully as we should. We need to be humble and take these things to heart!
ConclusionMuch of the material in this article is gleaned from the minutes of the General Assembly. I did not take time to go through the PSE minutes to document this. Since the issues were given their final appeal at GA and final decisions were made by GA, I thought it best to look at the record from the settled outcome. The most painful reflection that ought to be pursued is not addressed in this paper: do the fissures in the PSE still exist? What is being done to heal the wounds? Answering that goes beyond what I am writing here, but is important to note.
Overture 2 still provides a thorough look at what we need to be learning and thinking about. The Overture remains available for any presbytery, session, individual, or group to use. Although the mandate of the committee has been narrowed, the ideas do not need to be shelved. The real-life questions and stories remain. The PCA has recently completed its own report on the subject of abuse. Both the OPC and the PCA studies will supply some help but both are unduly limited in their approach. Overture 2 is certainly the boldest and best path.
Glenn D Jerrell is a Retired Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC); he is living in Knoxville, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Although Moses had a more immediate and intimate relationship with God than any other human on the planet, he still could not see the fullness of God’s glory and goodness and still live. Again, even though God spoke to Moses face to face and even though it was God’s face that would go with him and the people of Israel, those are metaphorical ways of speaking. Like all other sinful men (which is all of us), Moses could not behold the unfiltered glory of God and attempting to do so would be deadly. Therefore, Yahweh would hide Moses under the shelter of a rock.

C. S. Lewis once wrote:
If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.
I think Lewis is absolutely right. We do not wander into sin because our desires are too strong but because they are too weak towards the One who is altogether desirable. It was Israel’s weak desire that led to their creating the golden calf, for they were willing to abandon their worship of the Almighty Creator for a dumb image of an animal that they themselves had made.
Thus far, although God has relented from destroying Israel altogether, the people are still waiting for their great sin to be resolved. In our previous passage, Yahweh ordered Moses to lead the people into Canaan, yet He refused to go with them. This set before them a perilous but necessary decision: did they want God Himself or only the gifts that He could give them? Thankfully, Israel seemed to somewhat understand how disastrous the thought of being abandoned by God is.
In our present text, we sit in on a dialogue between Yahweh and Moses, and we discover by Moses was the great mediator of the Old Testament and a shadow and type of Christ our Lord. Our text can be divided into two general parts. Verses 12-17 show Moses’ renewed intercession on Israel’s behalf, and verses 18-23 describe Moses’ personal request from the LORD.
Do Not Bring Us Up from Here // Verses 12-17
In describing how Moses established a temporary tent of meeting outside of Israel’s camp, our previous text ended by describing Moses’ relationship with Yahweh as such: “Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” In this second half of chapter 33, we are invited to listen in on one of Moses’ conversations with the LORD.
Moses said to the LORD, “See, you say to me, ‘Bring up this people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”
In verses 12-13, Moses establishes his first request. He begins by addressing the most recent command that God had given him back in verse 1. The LORD had commanded him leave Sinai and take the Israelites into Canaan, the land of milk and honey that God had promised to their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To this command, Moses lays out his first concern: but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Of course, Yahweh had said that He would not go with them but would only send one of His angels before them. Moses was now drawing on that ambiguity and asking for clarification. As we will see, he is ultimately leading up to pleading for Yahweh Himself to go with them, but he begins with this question of who precisely God’s messenger was going to be.
Next, Moses draws the LORD’s attention to what He had previously said of Moses, that He knew the prophet by name and had favor toward him. While God will affirm this in verse 17, we can rightly assume that God previously told Moses this during one of their previous conversations. But regarding this favor towards Moses, Ryken explains:
This means much more than simply that God knew who Moses was. That would be true of anyone, because in that sense God knows everyone by name. But here the Bible is speaking of a special knowledge that is full of love and favor. According to John Mackay, for God to “know someone by name” is to embrace that person in “a relationship of acceptance and friendship.” Moses was an object of covenant grace. God knew him in a loving, saving, and electing way. God knows all his children like this. He knew us in our mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13–16). He knew us even before the foundation of the world. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3a). Anyone who is friends with God through faith in Jesus Christ is known and loved by the God who rules the universe.
Then in verse 13 Moses seeks to leverage that favor. If he had truly found favor in God’s sight, then he begged to know God’s ways, in order to know God and find further favor in His sight. By this Moses was asking “to comprehend God’s essential personality, the attributes that guide His actions in His dealings with humankind, the norms by which He operates in His governance of the world.” The LORD will do this very thing in the next chapter, where He will proclaim to Moses His name and character. Indeed, Psalm 103:7-8 explicitly ties these two passages together, saying:
            He made known his ways to Moses,his acts to the people of Israel.The LORD is merciful and gracious,slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
Thus, while God’s ways to us are certainly mysterious, they are nevertheless clear and plain. Douglas Stuart rightly notes that:
There is little room for mysticism in biblical religion; we do not know God by having some sort of inexplicable ethereal communion with him, in which are feelings are used as the evidence for our closeness to him. We know him by learning his ways (i.e., his revealed standards, revealed methods, and revealed benefits)—in other words by objective, rather than subjective, emotional, means. (701)
Notice also the last statement that Moses throws in at the end: Consider too that this nation is your people. After so heavily emphasizing his own relationship with God, he reminds the LORD again that He has adopted and covenanted Himself to Israel as His own people.
In verse 14, Yahweh answers Moses, saying, My presence with go with you, and I will give you rest. On the surface, this is the exact answer that Moses was hoping for. Although far more glorious than we are, Moses was not content to be led into the Promised Land by an angel; He wanted to the presence of the living God to go with Him. As we said of the bread of the Presence, God is literally saying that His face would go with him. Furthermore, God would give Moses rest. Just as Moses rested in the might of Yahweh throughout the destruction of Egypt, so would he continue to rest in God’s powerful hand as he continued to lead the people.
As wonderful as this promise is, Moses finds fault with it. You see, it is for him alone, not for the people of Israel. Thus, Moses presses on further in his task as mediator, saying in verse 15: If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here. Notice how Moses begins by speaking only of himself but ends by tying himself to Israel.
Read More
Related Posts:

Observing what’s not said is definitely an art and not a science, so you need to use common sense. Identify what you might expect from a passage. Then make sure to observe how (and whether) the text subverts those expectations to sharpen its argument. The biblical authors are constantly working to subvert our expectations so they might better persuade us to trust the Lord and seek first his kingdom.

We’ve mentioned it a thousand times: When we observe a passage of the Bible, we’re trying to figure out what it says. However, sometimes we won’t fully grasp what it says without first observing what it doesn’t say. Ryan has made this point in two recent posts with respect to characters’ names. But what’s not said applies to many other types of observation as well. Here are three examples.
Example #1: Luke 15:11-32
The parable commonly known as “The Prodigal Son” is really about Two Brothers. We’re told of the bad choices of the younger son (Luke 15:12-16), and his risky decision to come back home (Luke 15:17-19). We’re told about what happened upon his return (father runs to meet him, throws a party, etc., in Luke 15:20-24).
Then we’re told of the bad attitude and choices of the older son (Luke 15:25-30). We hear the father’s appeal to his grumbling son (Luke 15:31-32). But we never find out what he decided or what happened.
The two brothers are parallel to one another. Their stories are parallel. Up to the point where we expect to hear the choice and results of the older son’s decision. But that choice and its results are left unsaid. The parable simply ends on a cliffhanger.
What is the point of the omission? Jesus lets the end of the story play itself out in the response of the Pharisees and scribes who were grumbling (Luke 15:2). Luke 13-14 was all about the feast and joy of the kingdom of God. Will these grumbling scribes and Pharisees enter? Will those who are saved be few (Luke 13:23)?
Read More
Related Posts: