With the Scriptures agreed upon as the basis for determining Christian faith and practice, and the Westminster Standards as the summary of doctrine, one would expect agreement that homosexual behavior of any kind violates God’s revealed will. But, not all agree. Recently, a set of teachings has come into the church, mostly by way of seminars and social networking. This teaching holds that strong homosexual desire is not sin, and that in fact, God created certain men (or women) this way. Only their outward physical act is sin.

In Reformed theology, unity of the church must be based on doctrinal agreement.  It is a
characteristic that distinguishes it from other branches of Christ’s church.
In the PCA, main doctrines of God’s Word are worked out in “statements and/or propositions of doctrine” contained in the Westminster Standards (BCO 21-4).
While the Scottish divines allowed “scruples” (minor differences) with those Standards, major differences were not allowed, not only because they undermined unity in the church, but also undermined confessed biblical truth.
The Standards provide something of a contract for fellowship and communion within a denomination; the basis for accountability in it, both members and clergy.
Pragmatism, often the way of the world, is not an enduring basis for unity.  Christ alone, as He is revealed in Scripture, is the basis of unity, and that forever (Heb.13:8).
Large majorities voted for Overtures 23 and 37 (71%, 66% respectively) at last year’s General Assembly. Although voting was on track for a majority of Presbyteries to approve both overtures, the total would not reach the ⅔ standard required. So they failed.
Given that the Book of Church Order (BCO) is part of the constitution of the denomination, along with the Westminster Standards, one would expect a high bar to change it; there needs to be both a high level of clarity and agreement to change.
Currently, in the PCA, constitutional matters often get interpreted by a Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), which General Assembly has delegated some of its responsibility to.
But is this really about changing the constitution of the PCA?
Were the Amendments sufficiently clear in purpose?
Answering these two questions explains why the Overtures failed and suggests the way forward.
With the Scriptures agreed upon as the basis for determining Christian faith and practice, and the Westminster Standards as the summary of doctrine, one would expect agreement that homosexual behavior of any kind violates God’s revealed will.
But, not all agree. Recently, a set of teachings has come into the church, mostly by way of seminars and social networking.
This teaching holds that strong homosexual desire is not sin, and that in fact, God created certain men (or women) this way. Only their outward physical act is sin.
It concludes that the church must focus on identifying these people, and “love” them by giving special consideration to the apparently impossible situation God has put them in.
It betrays the obvious that without agreement on the biblical teaching on sexual morality, creation and natural revelation, there can be no basis for unity.
The Overtures, in their final form, were not sufficiently clear.
Four (4) Overtures were proposed to the General Assembly which were revised and collapsed into what eventually became the two (2) Overtures, 23 and 37. Related Overtures were directed toward the SJC.
It is particularly curious what happened to Overture 37. What had been an attempt at doctrinal precision became a laundry list of all sorts of things…. ” the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns….  sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement.”
Was anyone asserting that, e.g., financial mismanagement was at issue presently in the church? What exactly is “mismanagement”? Is it being promoted (by seminars and social networking) as a normal identity of believers; “Refinance” seminars perhaps?
This was confusing to some who would otherwise vote for the Overture.
Doesn’t the BCO already disqualify for church office a man who exhibits a life pattern of sexual immorality- whether by thought, word or deed?
Doesn’t this same principle apply to church members, as well as officers?
Or was there intention to create a two-tiered moral standard for church officers vis-à-vis church members in this area of sin?
Fair questions. They caused some to vote against one or both of these Overtures.
If we agree on the basic moral standards involved, there is a way forward. If not, there really is not one that can last.
Here are the immediate steps forward:

Theological precision that reflects homosexual sin of any kind is contrary to God’s revealed will, is harmful to people and brings on the terrible consequences of sin.
The SJC, in order to maintain credibility as a neutral, constitutional arbiter for the spiritual court, the General Assembly, needs to change to a delegated assembly, reflecting both the ruling and teaching elders of the denomination. No more factionalized appointments.
Instead of the three extra hours now added for debate and discussion of the defeated Overtures at the 49th General Assembly, add three hours of prayer, fasting and repentance over factionalism, indifference to truth, lack of love for fellow ministers and most of all lack of regard for Christ, the bridegroom of His church.

I am reminded of our LORD’s promise to the church of Pergamum, a church that was succumbing to worldliness in similar ways:
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it (Revelation 2:17).
With Christ, there is always a way back.
Scott Truax is a member of Ambassador Presbyterian Church (ARP) in Apex, N.C.

The doctrine of aseity tells us that God’s decision to create cannot be because of any deficiency in God. He didn’t need the universe in order to be happy. He wasn’t lonely without us! So, why create? God’s creation of the universe—and human beings—must be the abundant, joyful, gracious overflow of his goodness and kindness. What an amazing thought! God’s creation must be a result of his joyful delight to share and display his glory in all the universe and with all his creatures!

God’s Aseity
The first time I heard the word aseity was while sitting in a seminary class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with Dr. D. A. Carson. He was my advisor during my seminary years, and I heard Dr. Carson say many times: “I’ve learned over the years that my students don’t remember everything I teach them . . . but they do tend to remember what I am most excited about!” God’s aseity was a doctrine that I still remember Dr. Carson being excited to teach!
God’s aseity refers to God being eternally and completely “of himself.” The word comes from the Latin. It’s a compound word made up of two smaller words: “a” (from) and “-se” (self). To talk about the aseity of God, then, is to say that God is from and of himself. He is completely self-originating and dependent on nothing other than himself.
When we’re talking about God’s aseity, we are referring to the way that God has existed from eternity past completely independently of anything else—completely “of himself”—and therefore satisfied and delighted in himself. It goes without saying that this is not a “communicable” attribute of God (humans don’t share this attribute with God!). Now, here’s how I found this doctrine connecting with other systematic theological categories.
What does God’s aseity mean for the creation of the world?
I remember learning about creation (Genesis 1–2) in a Sunday school class when I was probably 6 or 7 years old. One of the kids asked the Sunday school teacher, “Why did God make Adam and Eve?” I remember her answering something like this: “God made Adam and Eve because he was ‘lonely’ and he wanted people to be with him and be his friends.”
Is that correct? Why would God choose to create the universe and human beings?
The doctrine of aseity tells us that God’s decision to create cannot be because of any deficiency in God. He didn’t need the universe in order to be happy. He wasn’t lonely without us! So, why create?
God’s creation of the universe—and human beings—must be the abundant, joyful, gracious overflow of his goodness and kindness. What an amazing thought! God’s creation must be a result of his joyful delight to share and display his glory in all the universe and with all his creatures!
What does God’s aseity mean for the salvation of sinners?
In Genesis 3, God could have been justifiably done with humanity! Adam and Eve had been living in the Garden of Eden, walking with God, enjoying his creation and stewarding it, and living in perfect fellowship with their Creator. And in that terrible moment, they listened to the lies of Satan and rebelled against the word of their good God. God could have wiped humanity from the earth, but he doesn’t do that.
Instead, we get Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelion or “first gospel.” God looks far into the future and promises that Eve’s seed—his own Son—will crush the head of the serpent and destroy Satan, sin, and death for his sinful people! The question is Why?
I want to suggest that the doctrine of God’s aseity gives us only one answer: God does this out of his sheer delight in demonstrating his grace! It’s the joyful overflow of God’s demonstration of this aspect of his character: his mercy and grace.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Lawrence M. Krauss |
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
Only by speaking out…can we try and dismantle the current strangle-hold that DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] bureaucracies have on researchers and students alike and restore academic freedom and excellence as the hallmarks of science and education.

A couple of weeks ago I published an article in the Wall Street Journal describing the tyranny that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies are imposing on universities and scientific institutions. This includes excluding talented scientists who are not effective enough in displaying their DEI allegiance, enforcing ideological adherence among faculty and students, and suppressing debate on the topics of merit, quotas, free speech, and a range of gender and race issues.
In that article, I gave a piece of partial evidence of the gulag-like environment currently existing in higher education. Numerous faculty responded to an earlier Wall Street Journal piece by me about ideological corruption in science, through emails in which they indicated they were writing under pseudonym accounts out of fear that colleagues or university officials might find out that they supported my concerns.
Happily, in response to my most recent piece, no respondents suggested they were shielding their identities, although a number indicated they were writing from their “non-university” email addresses—just in case—or felt comforted by now being retired and free to write. What they present, in summary, is a chilling perspective of the pervasive and divisive atmosphere that is continuing to develop in educational and scientific institutions. I felt it worth sharing a number of these perspectives, after having consulted the individuals involved. Unless otherwise directed, I have worked to ensure the anonymity of my correspondents.
Numerous correspondents wrote to me concerned about their specific areas of scholarship. Particularly worrying were emails from those in the medical and legal professions.
Here’s one from a professor at a very prominent US medical school:
Dear Dr Krauss,Your op-ed in WSJ barely touched the problem of DEI in American biomedical science and clinical practice. The societies (e.g., Amer Society of Cell Biology) and the journals (esp Elsevier) are rife with DEImania. This is affecting clinical medicine. It is the death spiral of American medicine, with unintended consequences for the very groups it is supposed to help.What can one do?
While this is concerned in more general terms with possible impacts on the field, a very poignant email from another professor in a biomedical field illustrates the personal impact that this environment of fear and suppression is taking on the psyche of scientific researchers:
I feel like the turtle in the picture with the neck out and about to get chopped … It is strange to me that this is happening because I am a Hispanic woman with Spanish, North African, Chinese, and Native American ancestry that speaks four languages and has lived everywhere in the world, so I should be the pinnacle of what DEI is aspiring for. Nevertheless, I am experiencing the tyranny of DEI because it is not about diversity of race or sex but more about a loyalty test. This will not last forever, but the question is how much damage this will do … This year has been an authoritarian year full of tyrannical mandates and intolerance. I have never experienced having moral (mandatory DEI trainings that forces me to affirm things that go against my conscience), medical, or religious tests in order to work before this year. Innovation and intellectual greatness come as a result of freedom. Suppression of speech and ideas will result in a reduction of greatness and innovation. Freedom of speech can only be real freedom if speech that we do not agree with is allowed. Let’s include diversity of thought and ideology in what you want to protect.
Beyond academia, I wrote about the growing inhibitory impact of DEI mandates in scientific institutions, including private ones like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. In this regard, I received the following email from an HHMI employee that sent shivers down my spine:
Dr. Krauss, I am a HHMI employee and I am grateful to you for your WSJ piece. The lowest point for me was February 8th this year, when all employees were expected to read Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America by Ijeoma Oluo. Ms. Oluo led a virtual talk that day for all HHMI employees. I trust that you know that the core motivation for HHMI’s DEI effort is to preempt any liability or negative press for two major discrimination lawsuits against HHMI by female Asian scientists. The journal Science covered these two lawsuits on 12/18/2019. Thank you again.
When it came to law schools and DEI, I received several emails from law school professors saying that the piece resonated with their own experience. I received two other legal-related responses that are of particular interest.
The first was from a student at a California law school. Several cases of law professors who have been caught up in unwarranted DEI adjudications of racism are well known and have been written about, including by me. However, the impact on their students is not so well known. Here is the email I received:
After reading your WSJ piece on “Diversity” as tyranny, I wanted to thank you for writing it. I know that took courage, especially in this political environment. Your discussion of “monomania” hit close to home. I’m a law student at [law school name omitted], and this week a brilliant torts professor has come under fire for baseless claims of racism. I wrote a letter to our DEI office defending him, though I doubt it will help.
Read More