The debate at GA last year over Overtures 16 and 23 hinged partially on whether men can legitimately use these English expressions as descriptions and not as identifications. That was an interesting, if truncated, debate. But Overture 15 leaves that debate behind and explicitly forbids a man from describing these properties of himself.

Dear Editor:
Joe Gibbons’ July 11 article “Exploring Overture 15 from the PCA General Assembly” is a paradigm of the problem with Overture 15 from the recent General Assembly. Gibbons uses the concepts of description and identity interchangeably, making it a sin to say the truth about one’s remaining sin. This is a disastrous conceptual error that is also present in Overture 15.
If we misunderstand and misuse human language, then when God uses human language to communicate with us, we will misunderstand and misuse His words. Again: if we misunderstand and misuse human concepts, then when God uses human concepts to communicate with us, we will misunderstand and misuse His communication.
Where Overture 15 says that “Men who describe themselves as homosexual…are disqualified from holding office” in the PCA, Gibbons comments that “‘identity’ language…[here stands] as a synonym with the ‘describes’ language in Overture 15.” But identification is not a synonym of description. This is a substantive misunderstanding and misuse of human language and concepts. The result is that Overture 15 does not forbid any of the things that Gibbons eloquently inveighs against but does forbid things that God commands His people to do.
Gibbons and others in our denomination argue that an officer of the church should not “cherish a homosexual or gay self-conception,” but since cherishing is internal one can do that while refraining from describing oneself as homosexual. They worry that church officers might “envelop themselves in worldly desires and appetites of the flesh,” but a man can do that with his homosexual desires even while refraining from calling himself homosexual. They claim that Christians should not say that homosexual desires are “uniquely descriptive of their lives and are an intrinsic part of their humanity,” but a man could say all of that without calling himself homosexual. As an example, recall the language popular in the previous generation that ‘I am an ex-gay man who still experiences some same-sex attraction.’ A man who uses only this sort of language could easily satisfy Overture 15 while constantly committing all of the sins and non-sins that Gibbons is worried about.
On the other hand, the only thing that Overture 15 actually forbids is describing oneself as homosexual. To describe some entity is simply to say the truth about one or more properties of that entity. As Scripture, the Westminster Divines, and Mr. Gibbons have noted, all Christians are beset with remaining sin. So some remaining sin or other will be contained in an accurate self-description uttered by any and every church officer of the PCA. In the English language, descriptive terms can sometimes appear superficially similar to identity terms.
I recently heard a pastor during his sermon comment that “I am a people-pleaser.” From the context it was clear that he meant this in the common Christian-lingo usage: he has a psychological disposition to seek and value the approval of people more highly than he should. He was describing an aspect of his remaining sin. The English locution of this description sounds on the surface like an identity claim: “I am a people-pleaser.” And it could at times be used in that way.
Similarly, the English locutions “I am homosexual” or “I am a homosexual” are descriptive phrases that signify the presence of a psychological disposition toward primary sexual attraction to the same sex. They sound on the surface like identity claims, and they sometimes might be used that way. Gibbons worries that a church officer may “feel such a strong desire to commit these particular sins daily that he chooses to describe himself by those sinful desires.”
True, that could happen. But a church officer, like the pastor I heard, could also truly have a disposition to some remaining sin and yet have mortified it such that it is actually not a strong daily desire in the way that Gibbons worries. A psychological disposition is not constituted by daily near-uncontrollable desire. When Paul said “O wretched man that I am!” (Rom. 7: 15-24), he described a disposition toward remaining sin that he currently possessed. On the interpretation of human language that Overture 15 codifies, Paul was qualified to write 13 books of the New Testament but was not qualified for office in the PCA. This is wrong.
The debate at GA last year over Overtures 16 and 23 hinged partially on whether men can legitimately use these English expressions as descriptions and not as identifications. That was an interesting, if truncated, debate. But Overture 15 leaves that debate behind and explicitly forbids a man from describing these properties of himself.
Such description is a constitutive part of confession of sin, which God commands us to do and promises grace to live out His will when such confession is done in the community of His Body (Gal. 6:2; Eph. 4:16; Jas. 5:16). Since this grace comes through confession, we cannot receive this grace without describing our remaining sin.
A question becomes immediately relevant: what if a psychological disposition to primary sexual attraction to men is part of a man’s remaining sin? Is this a disqualification from holding church office? The obvious answer should be “no,” since one can of course possess such a disposition while mortifying it according to Westminster Larger Catechism 139 (which Gibbons cites approvingly). But should a man also be forbidden from saying the truth about this remaining sin? Should he be forbidden from confessing it and receiving the grace from Christ’s body to bear his burden and so fulfill the Law of Christ? I should think the obvious answer is ‘no,’ but at least we are owed an argument to the contrary. Because saying the truth about this particular remaining sin is precisely what Overture 15 forbids.
Surprisingly but accurately, Gibbons makes a point of noting positively that Overture 15 does not forbid a church officer from “experiencing” such a psychological disposition – that is, from being homosexual – but only from saying that he experiences it! The underlying remaining sin of a psychological disposition toward same-sex attraction apparently does not disqualify a man, but the grievous sin of confessing that remaining sin does (supposedly) disqualify him. This confusion results from supposing that description and identification can be synonyms.
Gibbons laments the disunity and division that “this issue” has caused in the PCA, but I would suggest that “issues” do not cause disunity: they are abstracta with no causal powers. I suggest that what has caused disunity and division about Overture 15 is people, specifically people misunderstanding and misusing English words and concepts. I think there are some weighty theological differences in the background that deserve to be debated, but the division over Overture 15 is purely linguistic and conceptual. It should be obvious and uncontroversial that Overture 15 contains a grievous linguistic mistake. I plead with Mr. Gibbons and other supporters of Overture 15 to engage in loving, private, and extended dialogue and relationship with those who are worried about Overture 15 and its predecessors. The lack of such dialogue and relationship well describes the actual cause of our disunity and division.
Luke Kallberg is a member of Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis, MO.
Related Posts:

Yes, Herod was the King of the Jews who killed children to hold onto his power, but Jesus, He is the Christ, the King of the Jews who surrendered his power, became a child and was killed for his children. When our suffering and the suffering of this world seems too much we have to ask God to give us the heart to see his King of the Jews, strung up and pinned down on the cross, forsaken and left to die, not only by humanity, but by his Father too. 

The Human Rights Chief of the United Nations, Volker Turk, reported that a “quarter of humanity is caught in global conflicts.” That’s two billion people. We might wonder what comfort the Christian story offers to folks who will not plan easter egg hunts for their children, or cook a President’s Choice spiral ham, or attend a Easter Sunday worship service, but instead must listen to gunfire and missiles, struggle to find food and water, flee to refugee camps.
The story in Matthew 2:1–18 talks about a King of the Jews called Herod who cared little for the people he governed and mostly obsessed over his own legacy – a leader like many who rule today. At the time of Christ’s birth Herod the Great was in charge and this passage tells us a lot about his lust for dominance and disregard for human life.
There’s more.
Titled King of Judea by Marc Antony himself, Herod was a vassal of Rome and given to building things and tyranny. This King of the Jews had 45 members of the Sanhedrin killed, ordered his favourite wife murdered, then her mother, brother, and two sons, and in 4 BC he had 40 dissenting Jewish students burned alive. The week before he died he had his first born son executed and it is said he had influential men imprisoned, ordering they be killed as soon as he died, so Israel would be sure to grieve.
History describes Herod as a friend to powerful men, a visionary, ambitious, ruthless, obsessive, jealous, cruel. Herod, King of the Jews, wanted to be seen and known by everyone but had no desire to see and know his own people or their suffering. In fact, he caused much of it.
This Herod, King of the Jews, is a lot like the wicked rulers of today, brooding and afraid in his palace, ordering others to do his murderous work. Like most monarchs there was probably no dirt under his fingernails, no dust on his sandals, no literal blood on his hands. We see and know him, don’t we. He’s the King of the Jews who had his family, influential citizens, dissenting students, and children murdered.
But all the while, during Herod’s unstable reign, there was another King of the Jews who would eternally supplant him; a King of peace for the war weary world.
Years before King Herod would walk the earth the prophet Micah promised that out of lowly Bethlehem, a town of no great reputation, would come the greatest King (Mic. 5:2).
Read More
Related Posts:

Evangelicals need a Biblical theology of foolishness for our generation that will at once “shame the wise” and declare the truth and promise of the gospel. How should that look for Protestant believers in the twenty-first century? Whatever it looks like, it must embrace the foolishness of the cross to affirm that our faith does not “rest not on human wisdom,” as Paul put it to the Corinthians, “but on the power of God.”

The Power of the Cross to Shame the Wise
The Los Angeles Dodgers recently hosted at their ballpark the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an organization that claims to “raise drag awareness” and increase “understanding of gay spirituality.” This has caused controversy since the men in the organization are flamboyantly anti-Catholic, dress as nuns, and incorporate blasphemy into their “performances.” The Dodgers invited the group to participate in “Pride Night,” but before it took place they disinvited the Sisters in response to online anger on the part of Christian groups and others. The disinvitation prompted what was evidently an even bigger backlash on social media from defenders of the Sisters, which prompted the Dodgers to re-invite the group, and then publicly bestow upon them a “Community Hero Award.”
The Dodgers have reconfirmed it is possible to be craven and sanctimonious at the same time.
Drag Queens are not the only means of challenging moral and social norms in society, or, of problematizing heteronormative bourgeois values, as I would have said had I paid better attention during drag queen story hour. What the left has known and said for quite some time–at least since the 1960s—is that just about any kind of clownishness will do. The clown is a caricature, an exaggeration. His method is to distort some facet of reality to the point of absurdity. Big noses, red lips, oversized feet, effeminate men—does not really matter what is exaggerated. What matters is that you, the viewer, are entertained or captivated or distracted. Playing the fool means not fitting in, usually in a spectacular way.
But clowning is about more than mocking the clown. Foolishness can be a means of persuasion, too. In this case, the real joke is not on the fools, but on the people laughing at them. An effective clown prompts you to ponder the world in a different light, imagine another way, maybe even another world, and to come to see your own position as more strange or arbitrary or absurd than you previously thought. Court jesters, parodists, and drag queens have known this as long as they have been around. Embracing one’s own foolishness in the eyes of the majority is a powerful, and potentially revolutionary tool.
This is where Evangelical Christians have something to learn from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Foolishness delivers a message to the ones who laugh; it is a tool of persuasion wielded by outliers in society. After generations of occupying one kind of moral majority or another, Evangelicals have forgotten how to embrace and defend the “foolishness” of our own faith. We have spent the past few decades trying to appease the scoffers. The result is that our resolve to stand for truth is weakened in a world hostile to us. We need to recover the art of godly foolishness, an ancient and venerable means of speaking truth, and one that will inoculate us against the inevitable disdain of the world.
Revolutionary Potential of the Fool
In the 1960s, the radical left incorporated clownishness into its repertoire as a matter of course. Reading about it is quite refreshing, honestly, given how humorless and dour so much of the left can often be. Marx was never known for his knock-knock jokes. In recent years, the left’s resentment toward humor has been on full display. The banning of The Babylon Bee from Twitter for mocking left-wing pieties should have been a Babylon Bee gag, not an actual news story.
There was a period, however, during which this was not the case. In 1968, for instance, the left-wing radicals who called themselves Yippies nominated a 150-pound pig named “Pigasus the Immortal” to run for President against Richard Nixon. They were arrested at the campaign launch in Chicago, and charged with bringing livestock into the city. When asked why they nominated a pig for the presidency, one of them explained it was “because if we can’t have him in the White House, we can at least have him for breakfast.” This is fine political satire, suggesting that the potential bacon value of your candidate outweighs the policy value of your opponent. Surely there were a few Republicans that gave a chuckle at the time, even if they deplored the Yippies.
The 1960s and 70s superstar Marxist intellectual and father of the New Left, Herbert Marcuse was completely onboard with this kind of clownishness. Marcuse explained in his jargony though wildly popular writing (every academic’s dream) how all the goofiness amounted to oppositional political action. For instance, he wrote in 1969 that “in some sectors of the opposition the radical protest tends to become antinomian, anarchistic, and even non-political. Here is another reason why the rebellion often takes on the weird and clownish forms which get on the nerves of the Establishment.” This comes from his Essay on Liberation, a title more ironic than “Pigasus the Immortal.”
Marcuse understood the revolutionary potential of the fool, who, by the way, does not have to be as offensive as the drag queen nuns of L.A. to be effective; I suspect that not all drag story hour readers are twerking in the library. They do not have to in order to achieve their goal, which is, according to the nonprofit “Drag Story Hour,” that kids “see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.” This group started in 2015 in San Francisco to shepherd this “global phenomenon” into the next generation; it understands that the defiance of gender restrictions opens the door for imagining a new world. Deconstruct to reconstruct.
It is important here not to get tempted by the pablum of “authentic selves” into thinking this is innocuous. It sounds innocuous, but there is a difference between innocuous and vacuous. The first is unthreatening, by definition, whereas the second is empty and therefore fillable with whatever one wants to fill it with. Vacuous social justice cliches are the Trojan Horses of the movement. Inside the call to “imagine a world” is the moral sanction to deconstruct the world as it is. Inside the phrase “authentic selves” dwells the doctrine of human sovereignty over human nature. This is the logic of utopia: you deconstruct the “structures of power” as they exist, and in the vacuum install a new king. Or drag queen.
Read More
Related Posts: