There is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and he practices celibacy because he believes that change is possible (although unlikely), and because he mortifies this sin every day, and because he is of good character in every other way, then he is qualified to hold office in the PCA.

I recently contributed an article about the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) decision on the complaint against Missouri Presbytery (The Recent SJC Decision and Side B2 Homosexuality).  I believe I muddied the waters somewhat by stating the positions of others when some readers thought that those were actually my views. I apologize for that.
It’s time to be perfectly clear.  There are three positions on the status of those men who have made it public that are same-sex attracted (SSA),  that is, have homosexual desires to have sex with other men, but practice celibacy. Should they be allowed to hold an office in the PCA?
First, there is the position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, this automatically disqualifies him from holding office in the PCA.  Even though he practices celibacy, he is not qualified for the office of either elder or deacon. This sin is both an abomination to God and contrary to nature; therefore, he is not above reproach either with those inside the church or those outside the church.  Many of those who take this position regarding the ineligibility of such men to hold office in the PCA have already left the PCA, except for me and maybe a few other people.
Secondly, there is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and yet he practices celibacy, this may disqualify him from holding office in the PCA.  If he remains celibate, but he believes that he was born this way and that there is no hope of change, then he is not qualified to hold office in the PCA.  These men most often believe their sin is no different than any other sin; for example, that of the lust that men have for women not their wives, a dry alcoholic, or the temptation to gamble. They may even believe that their condition is just like a person with a genetic disease.  A person with Down’s Syndrome cannot change his genetic inheritance, and neither can he.
Thirdly, there is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and he practices celibacy because he believes that change is possible (although unlikely), and because he mortifies this sin every day, and because he is of good character in every other way, then he is qualified to hold office in the PCA (this is contrary to my view, but it is the position of most PCA elders).  Some of these men already hold office in the PCA, and they will continue to do so.  They are in good standing with either their own session or their own presbytery. Others like them will soon find a home in the PCA.  I call this man the third man.
The proposed changes to the BCO would allow for the third man to hold office in the PCA, after careful examination by his session or presbytery.  The PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality states that there is nothing to prevent the third man from being eligible to hold office in the PCA. The recent Standing Judicial Commission decision made it legal for the third man to hold office in Missouri Presbytery.
There you have it. Pretty straight, I hope.  I would add one more thought.  The PCA is a little like the South during the Civil War which believed in states’ rights.  All local presbyteries and sessions have the right to determine their own membership. Regardless of the result of the proposed changes to the BCO, the conclusion of the PCA Study Committee, and the SJC decision, individual sessions and presbyteries will continue to apply the teaching of the Word of God and Westminster Standards to these issues, as they see fit!
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.

While Overtures 23 and 37 did not receive the approval of 2/3 of presbyteries, they did receive more than a majority of the presbyteries that have voted so far. The debate on the issue is not over. There are a number of presbyteries preparing to send overtures to the 49th PCA General Assembly on the qualifications for ordination to church office. 

An unofficial early count has determined that both Overture 23 and Overture 37 of the 48th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) have failed to pass the denomination’s regional presbyteries, before which they were considered as Items 2 and 4.
At the 48th General Assembly, commissioners passed Overture 23 by a vote of 1438-417 (71% approval) and Overture 37 by a vote of 1209-617 (66% approval). The General Assembly’s approval of the Overtures led to their being considered by the denomination’s constituent regional presbyteries for a vote. Of the 88 presbyteries in the PCA, 59 were needed to answer these Book of Church Order (BCO) amendment proposals (Items 2 and 4, respectively) in the affirmative for the proposals to be presented to the 49th General Assembly for final ratification. Every BCO amendment must be affirmed by at least 2/3 of the presbyteries.
Conversely, 30 negative presbytery votes on any BCO amendment will cause it to fail at the level of the presbyteries. On January 29th, 2022, Overture 37 (Item 4) received its 30th negative vote, causing it to fail the presbyteries. Just a few weeks later, on February 10th, 2022, Overture 23 (Item 2) registered its 30th negative vote. This means that both amendments fail to meet the 2/3 requirement needed to be considered at the 49th General Assembly scheduled to be held in Birmingham, Alabama in June of this year.
Overture 23 (Item 2)
Overture 23 (Item 2) sought to amend BCO 16-4 to prohibit the ordination of men who self-identify as “gay Christians,” “same sex attracted Christians,” “homosexual Christians,” “or like terms.” The amendment states:
BCO 16-4. Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual  Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the  sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations,  and actions are not qualified for ordained office.
Supporters of this amendment argued that the proposal grants constitutional authority to many of the most significant aspects of the Ad Interim Report on Human Sexuality. Concerns regarding gay identity and the nature of progressive sanctification are at the heart of this proposed amendment to the BCO. Supporters believe that the PCA must now issue an authoritative – and even Constitution-amending – response to today’s controversy swirling around human sexuality.
Opponents of this amendment argued that the proposed change lacks mature consideration and was merely reactionary. Opponents characterized this amendment as redundant and unnecessary because the PCA’s doctrinal standards already speak to issues of sexuality. Moreover, opponents argued that the term “identity” is a modern creation that may become opaque and obsolete in the near future.
Overture 37 (Item 4)
Overture 37 (Item 4) sought to amend BCO 21-4 and 24-1 to further emphasize the moral requirements for ordained officers in the PCA and to clarify the process for examining the moral character of candidates for office in the church. The amendment states:
BCO 21-4 e. In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The candidate must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5, Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3; Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness, but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of the pastoral office, Presbyteries are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations of these matters and to give prayerful support to candidates.
BCO 24-1. In the examination of each nominee’s personal character, the Session shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. Each nominee must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending upon this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5; Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3; Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness, but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of church office, Sessions are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations into these matters and to give prayerful support to nominees.
Supporters of this proposal argued that changes to these two paragraphs in the BCO would bring peace and unity to the PCA by maintaining a high standard for officers within the church. They believe presbyteries have often struggled with evaluating the moral character of candidates for ordination. The adjustments put forward in this proposal would have offered clear guidance for presbyteries and churches as they examine candidates for ordained office.
Opponents of this proposal argued that this addition to the BCO would do more harm than good. They believe that there is simply too much ambiguity regarding what the amendment seeks to achieve. In short, this amendment would fail to protect the church from officers with character deficiencies and it would not be clear or helpful enough for presbyteries in their examination process of candidates for the gospel ministry.
Is the Issue Over?
While Overtures 23 and 37 did not receive the approval of 2/3 of presbyteries, they did receive more than a majority of the presbyteries that have voted so far. The debate on the issue is not over. There are a number of presbyteries preparing to send overtures to the 49th PCA General Assembly on the qualifications for ordination to church office.
Scott Edburg is Assistant Pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Tuscumbia, Ala.
Resources on the Sexuality Amendments:
Articles on Overture 23 and 37
2021 BCO Amendment Spreadsheet
Resources on Amending the BCO:
See “Amending the Book of Church Order (BCO) on pcapolity.com/case-studies.

No one takes joy in the doctrine of hell, not even God. Jesus said his Father doesn’t want any children to perish (Matt. 18:14). He wants all to repent and find themselves in him (2 Pet. 3:9). But people still have a free will. They can choose not to repent and follow God. And Scripture is clear about the eternal consequence of that decision—despite its ugliness and terror. Based on that same free will, people can choose to reject the doctrine of hell. The problem is twofold. One is the ripple effect. The other is that many Christians have lost all sense of authority beyond the self, and that’s precisely where they’ve given way to secular culture, which prioritizes self above all else. 

Beliefs ripple. But we make a concerted effort to ignore that. Especially within the system of Christian faith, people can be tempted to pick and choose which doctrines they are “okay with” and which ones they leave behind. The problem lies in the ripples. Christians don’t always see how disbelief in one thing affects belief in another. In this article, I want to use disbelief in the existence of hell as an example. Universalism has made a comeback, especially since the work of people like Rob Bell. Maybe the initial conservative horror at what he said in Love Wins has worn off after a decade. Maybe some Christians are favoring moral practicality or inner feelings over the authority of God’s Word. I don’t know.
But what I set out below leads to a troubling conclusion: as a Christian, if you don’t believe in hell, there’s a very good chance you’re lost and having a hard time identifying both who God is and who you are. And you may be drifting towards that ever-growing “religious-nones” category.
Rippling Doctrines
In a recent podcast series, Kevin DeYoung and David Briones talked about liberal Christianity of the early 20th century and its relation to what’s commonly called “progressive Christianity” today. DeYoung made a passing observation that doesn’t get near enough attention. In referring to the doctrine of hell as a staple of orthodox Christian faith, he noted how rejecting that doctrine requires that you redefine every other doctrine, too. This is what we might call the ripple effect of belief. And if people knew about this, I don’t know that they’d be as quick to dismiss a biblical doctrine that has guided and steered the faith of the church for over two thousand years.
Here’s what the ripple effect looks like. If there’s no hell, then you have to revisit the doctrine of sin, since not repenting of sin is what lands people in hell (Matt. 7:23; 25:41; Mark 9:43; 2 Thess. 1:9). But then you have to look at the doctrine of Christ, since Christ came to “save” the world from sin (Matt. 1:21; John 1:29; Acts 2:38; Rom. 3:23; 5:8; 6:23; 1 John 1:7; 2:2). And if sin doesn’t actually put anyone in hell, because hell doesn’t exist, then why did Christ come? What did we need saving from if not sin? Or—dare you think it—did we even need saving.
The ripples keep coming. If we redefine Christ’s mission, and Christ is the Son of God, then we have to redefine our doctrine of God, especially the notion of God’s holiness. Who is this God that sent himself to a humanity that didn’t need saving from a hell that doesn’t exist? If holiness isn’t an attribute of God, then what can we say about who God is? And if we’re leaving behind Scripture as the authority on who God is, do we simply associate God with anything that we feel is loving, beautiful, or mysterious?
And lest you thought this was all speculation about supernatural ideas, we also have to revisit the doctrine of man, of who we are. If we were formerly understood as creatures made in God’s image (Gen. 1:27), but we no longer have a clear understanding of who God is in terms of holiness, then who are we? What makes a human a human? As Christians, we can’t answer that question without an understanding of who God is. The doctrines of God and man are inextricably linked; whatever you believe about one has direct implications for the other. That is, if you’re still claiming to be a Christian. (More on that in a moment).
The ripple effect should be evident now.
Read More
Related Posts: