There’s a beauty to the holiness of God. There’s a beauty when God exercises his righteousness. There’s a beauty to the love of God and the mercy of God. As we see God exercising those attributes in his relationships to human beings and what he’s doing in the world.

An Attribute and a Characteristic
Is beauty an attribute of God? Yes, and . . . . Beauty is clearly an attribute of God. That’s why the psalmist sometimes uses the term “beauty” to describe God. The beauty of God in his sanctuary in Psalm 96, or very famously in Psalm 27 when the psalmist expresses this desire to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to see him in his temple.
The Bible doesn’t hesitate, on occasion, to use the word “beauty” to describe God. So you can put beauty on your list with the goodness of God, the love of God, the mercy of God, and the righteousness of God.
Read More
Related Posts:

This will Set a New Standard by Which to Amend the BCO for Every Cultural Issue. Rebuttal: Almost every year the BCO is amended so that we are guided and aided in our practice as new issues with it present themselves.  These changes directly affect and guide the practice of the church. We have entered a new phase in American Christianity where the dominant worldview of the country no longer fits with a Biblical Worldview. In these changing times, it is conceivable that we will have to further clarify things in our BCO that were once taken for granted.  We must realize the times that we are in and adapt our processes to them as we always have.

It is not the intent of this article to redo the work of brothers in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) who have already defended Overture 23 and 37 on Biblical, Theological, Practical, Pastoral, and Semantic grounds.  Here are some resources to help in that regard.

I’d like to more pointedly address the objections to the Overtures on the basis that some claim they don’t belong in our Book of Church Order (BCO) and they would set a precedent that we haven’t seen before.  While this is not a critique of David Coffin’s article, many of these objections do appear there. For a line-by-line analysis of the Coffin article, see Pastor Aldo Leon’s Video.
Here are rebuttals to 8 common objections to the Overtures that say they Don’t Belong in our  BCO:
Objection 1: This is not the type of thing we put in the BCO.  The BCO is for Procedures for the governance of the Church.
Rebuttal: This does set procedures for the Governance of the Church.  But in as much this sets forth what we believe about Identity and Same-Sex Attraction (SSA), we have done this before in areas that require clarity, emphasis, or are absent from the Westminster Standards.

Defining The Office of Deacon and specifying it is only open to Men. (BCO 9, 9-3)
Defining What Marriage is and that it is only for 1 man & 1 woman. (59-3)
Saying that Women or Men can be Assistants to the Deacons. (9-7)

Objection 2: Our Constitution shouldn’t go beyond what Scripture Says are the Qualifications for Ordination
Rebuttal: BCO 21-4c sets the standards for Ordination and we do in fact further define, assess, and determine what to test men for Ordination.
For example, 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1 say that a man must be “able to teach/give instruction.”  We don’t solely leave that up to the Presbyteries to determine.  It is the BCO which tells Presbyteries HOW men must be trained (Seminary or other approved method) and WHAT must be tested. Scripture doesn’t tell us that a man must have an Master’s Degree or that he must show proficiency in areas like Church History and in the Biblical Languages.  Yet, those things are in the BCO.
We NOW need guidance on how to test and hold a men accountable to the Scriptural area of their Christian Maturity, Character, Communication, and Godliness with regard to a pressing societal issue that is redefining the Worldview of everything in our culture.  These Overtures do that. Additionally, they aren’t limited to SSA but also highlight the issues of addiction, abuse, racism, and financial mismanagement.
Objection 3: This Kind of Language is too Confusing & Subjective to Have in the BCO
Rebuttal: Overture 37 says “must not be known by reputation.”  This is Biblical, Pauline, and not at all confusing. Unless of course, we are willing to say we don’t understand what Scripture means when it says that a man must be “above reproach” and “well thought of by outsiders” in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. (Overture 23’s use of “profess an identity” is taken up in Objection 6.)
Additionally, the BCO has this type of language that is left for good and reasonable men to ascertain what it means given our shared commitments.  If those shared commitments can’t guide us in the application of these Overtures, then we are hopeless in these areas which already exist as well:
16-3 – “everyone admitted to an office should be sound in the faith, and his life be according to godliness.”
18-2 – “consisting of testimonials regarding his Christian character”
9-3 – “shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.”
21-4 c – ““Trials for Ordination shall consist of: his acquaintance with experiential religion, especially his personal character and family management.”
Objection 4: This will Set a New Standard by Which to Amend the BCO for Every Cultural Issue.
Rebuttal: Almost every year the BCO is amended so that we are guided and aided in our practice as new issues with it present themselves.  These changes directly affect and guide the practice of the church.
We have entered a new phase in American Christianity where the dominant worldview of the country no longer fits with a Biblical Worldview. In these changing times, it is conceivable that we will have to further clarify things in our BCO that were once taken for granted.  We must realize the times that we are in and adapt our processes to them as we always have.
Objection 5: We have the AIC Report , we don’t Need them in the BCO
Rebuttal: The AIC report has no constitutional authority. We have already seen how it has been used to justify practices that it condemns because it allows for selective exceptions in practice.  That’s all some need to justify the wholesale use of the exception.  To some men the exception is the rule.  Adding them to the BCO will at least make the rule the rule.
Objection 6: We don’t Put Psycho-Sociological Language in the BCO.
Rebuttal: While rare, that’s not exactly true.  The BCO uses the word “feels” multiple times in places you would expect to see more objective words such as “reasons,” “determines,” or ‘believes.”  In 41-2 for instance, cases can be referred where the lower court “feels” the need for guidance.  Why does it not say “determines” or “believes they need guidance” or “reasons that it is wise that they receive guidance.”
Psychological or Psycho-Sociological language is the spirit of the day and it doesn’t seem to be abating.  Do we really believe that speaking of how a person “identifies” is any more socio-psychological than speaking of how a person or body “feels” about an issue?
Additionally, it is just the nature of documents to have the flavor of when they are written. The Westminster Standards have many clarifications that seem odd to our current contexts, until we realize the theological battles they were dealing with in their day which required that clarity.  When we read those sections we understand why they are there.
Objection 7: This type of change should be added to the Westminster Standards not the BCO.
Rebuttal: While rare, I have heard this.  First, the BCO is rightly where the Church defines how we test and ordain men.  Additionally, The Westminster Standards are documents that are a shared by many denominations. It would make no sense for the PCA to change them , thereby giving us a version unique to us. Further, the precedent has been set, that we don’t do that.  We didn’t add our understanding of Deacons to the WCF, but we put it in the BCO.
Objection 8: This won’t fix or change anything regarding the problems that people are seeing in the PCA.
Rebuttal: That may or may not be true.  But Officers in Christ’s Church are called to more than this type of argument based on pragmatism.
Conclusion
The Overtures are in line with the AIC Report on Human Sexuality. In as much as this issue is serious enough to warrant a Study Committee and Report, it is all the more important that these principles be placed in our Constitution.
More Reading:

George Sayour is Senior Pastor of Meadowview Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Lexington, NC. This article is used with permission.

We see trouble; they see beauty. We see monotony; they see creativity. We see a nuisance; they see a story. Oh, how much we might learn from them, how much more we might see through their eyes. G.K. Chesterton writes, “Children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony.” (Orthodoxy, 81)

One afternoon this summer, my 6-year-old came running through the house to find me. His eyes were wild with excitement. “Dad, you’ve got to come look — right now. Come look, come look, come look! Hurry, you’re going to miss it!”
We raced back to the living room, to the big window looking out over our backyard. From the day we moved in, that window has been our favorite room in the house. My son’s eyes searched one of the trees, searching and searching, and then he saw it again. “Dad, there! There! Do you see it? Do you see it?” And I did. Probably 25 feet up in one of our tallest trees was the backside of a big raccoon, comfortably perched out on one of the branches.
I mean, at first, we assumed it was a raccoon (too big to be a squirrel, too small to be a bear, too fat and furry to be a bird). We sat transfixed, watching that rear end — waiting for the animal to eat, or climb, or fall, or even just scratch an itch. Then it moved. Its tail swung down where we could see it, with its trademark black and gray stripes. “Dad, its tail! It is a raccoon!”
As I looked in my son’s eyes — and there was so much in those eyes — I saw a wisdom I once had and now sometimes struggle to remember. For that moment, he was my teacher, and I was his son.
Monotony or Creativity?
For the “mature” like me, raccoons are almost immediately a nuisance. They make homes under porches and climb down into chimneys. They tear away shingles and break holes in walls. When we see them, we reach for the phone to pay someone to come and remove them. Within a business day, if possible.
When my children see a raccoon, they see an entirely different creature. They’re not worried at all about the structural integrity of porches or the possibility of a four-legged home invasion. To them, animal control may as well be the KGB (just watch any animated movie with animal control workers). No, when they see a raccoon, it may as well be a triceratops. They don’t see problems; they see curiosities. They ask questions (lots of them): Where did he get his stripes? Why is he sleeping during the day? Does he have any friends? Can I pet him? We see trouble; they see beauty. We see monotony; they see creativity. We see a nuisance; they see a story.
Oh, how much we might learn from them, how much more we might see through their eyes. G.K. Chesterton writes,
Children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. (Orthodoxy, 81)
What 6-Year-Olds See
I recently felt my flabby imagination when our family went to pick KinderKrisp apples at a local orchard. Having tasted apples every week of their lives, it was our children’s first chance to actually grab one from a tree.
You could see their minds spinning, trying to connect the dots — they knew both apples and trees, but could not imagine them holding hands like this.
Read More
Related Posts: