In so far as these amendments about church officers address homosexuality (and they simultaneously address by name financial folly, relational abusiveness and racial wickedness), they simply parallel the common grace observation of AA. The absence of alcohol or of sex truly is significant, but it is not inherently decisive in the discernment for ordination. Gay and celibate isn’t enough. These amendments fix firmly the immutable obligation of PCA courts to recognize dry drunks and moist homosexuals as believers ineligible for ordination.

It is to be expected that the following opinion piece will be criticized as homophobic, fundamentally at odds with the gospel, grossly callous and hurtful. It will surely be faulted for issues it does not address, and for forbidden diction as well as insufficient empathy.
Criticism of that kind will simply prove the point. Some matters are indubitable, no matter how they provoke offense. Some matters are judgement calls, no matter how much a motion to call the question disappoints. You can’t have this discussion without a messy omelette. You can’t have this discussion without wails and consternation.
Such shadow & gesture & implication assessment of my assertions and conclusions is purposefully invoked by this italicized introduction as a convenient demonstration of the whole. Earnest engagement with homosexuality in the PCA will bring friction, flack and slow moralistic pressure. Our Constitution and our vows must be fit for both our convictions and our weakness. Pass 23 and 37.
Our Setting and Circumstance
In the summer of 2021, overtures 23 and 37 were passed by large majorities at the PCA General Assembly. During the subsequent year, 88 presbyteries will vote on the corresponding amendments to the Book of Church Order, defeating them if more than 29 presbyteries reject them. If at least 59 presbyteries uphold them, a final vote will be cast at the 2022 General assembly. Yes, that is 90 votes. That is what it takes for a positive result, but essentially only 31 votes for a negative conclusion. These are the numbers of the process.
The most sympathetic and poignant reasons to reject the overtures are the possible negative impact for some who aspire to office in the PCA. Purportedly the amendments would become discriminatory tools in the hands of teaching and ruling elders shepherding men through the process of ordination. They would cause collateral grief and provoke understandable sins. In sum, the argument arises from distrust in the competence of PCA officers to act with wisdom. (See Part One).
Distrust is a common thread in discussion of homosexual persons– not just in the church. Over the last decade the cultural significance of homosexuality has changed, and such distrust has become less defensive and rather preemptive. Homosexuality has been transformed– not into a matter of individuality and public indifference, but rather into a benchmark of recognizable authenticity and public liberty. (See Part Two)
Ensconced in the framework of sexual minority status, that distrust anticipates and squares off with any diminution of homosexuality as an honored value in the attempted social equilibrium. Similar though not identical preemptive distrust has been articulated in the PCA; however, at times similarity seems to bend from being identical only by the difference of being congruent. It can be difficult to detect the difference. A discriminating disposition to detect determinative differences is the desideratum in presbyterian process. In a wholesome sense– even if the lexicon expunges it– the business of church courts is discrimination.
PCA Policy and Procedure
The policy and procedures of the PCA regarding homosexuality must reckon with the de facto status imputed to homosexual men and women. Contemporary admiration and protection afforded to homosexual persons is grounded in the axiom that same sex attraction is fixed and immutable; moreover, that static foundation is all the more virtuously embraced when combined with the commitment to celibacy. The virtuous estimation of homosexuality combined with a traditional rejection of illicit sexual activity waxes more fully, even to both praise for and vigilance on behalf of homosexual persons in the PCA.
The offered amendments do not curtail either the praise or the vigilance; however they provide a stipulated requirement for courts to persist in distinguishing members from officers, a credible profession of faith with all its entitlements in the PCA from an exemplary piety with all its authority in the PCA. Preemptive distrust discolors discriminating examination and analysis as inherently discriminatory, so long as gay (fixed and immutable) is combined with celibate (persevering and reliable). Gay and celibate should be enough, or 95%, to end the consideration of a man’s fitness for office so far as the seventh commandment is concerned.
Is celibacy the boundary of homosexual corruption? Such self-mastery, no– Spiritual fortitude, in a professing Christian calls for admiration and protection. Gay&Celibate can be mocked and discouraged by other homosexuals as obvious “wannabes and gonnabes”. Certainly that is the diction of the accuser of the brethren– declaring that Christ has not emancipated them from the flesh. Victory must be celebrated and faith vigilantly bolstered in the household of God. Such is true with all believers and all besetting sins. Still, the question stands: is unstinting celibacy the homosexual line between the general office of church member and the special offices of deacon and elder? Does gay celibacy only need to pass the requisite ordination exams?
The offered amendments address only the standards for discriminating which men are fit for special office. They assume that what falls short of ordination does not disqualify from membership. In regards to homosexuality, they do not rule out some notion of “fixed” (indwelling sin, anyone?); however, they are in no way controversial for compromising “immutable.” Gay&celibate has already championed a real index of change. The amendments go further in rejecting celibacy as the demarcation of exemplary piety requisite for office in the case of same sex attracted aspirants to office. The amendments do not establish a checklist, rather they call for examination of the man’s character and conduct in regards to his remaining sinfulness in the specific array and dynamic of homosexuality.
Read More

There is a profound and disturbing conundrum humming in the background of these eight years and many emails: the secrecy of the majority. By repeated assertion and articulated reasoning, these emails show a small group of officers claiming to stand for the majority in our communion. Their discussion manifests a concern to ensure that the majority view in the denomination is not slighted by the vigorous efforts of minority positions– views purportedly unrepresentative of the majority among us.

The Other Side?
I did not know much beyond the name National Partnership, though I have heard frequent references over these last several years. I had one very disturbing exchange with one of the big-name-round-there brothers. It didn’t tell me anything about the NP, but it resonated with the dark characterizations I saw tagged on to NP. This brother quickly deduced from my criticism of an article on progressivism in the PCA that I preached another gospel. Yep, the Godwin’s law of industry presbyterianism from reading my piece in literally three pairs of DM’s.
I have an extended family member who is given to strong, hard, out of the blue statements. I taught high school with some wonderful students with the wild angles that can show up “on the spectrum”. I didn’t conclude that the fellow was a wingnut. When he said he would pray for me, he clearly put it on his calendar for the next two weeks; he DM’ed me to say he was praying for me. I had to decide to set aside the dark characterizations, but it wasn’t hard. This brother had nothing to do with anything connected to me, and he conducted himself with a balance of admirable and first-blush-odd. I am not a standard to score people on odd.
Then along came Presbyleaks, or NatPartnergate or the We Got Owned Scandal. The National Partnership emails (or some portion?) from 2013-2021 were . . . forwarded, leaked, stolen, made available? Yes, I read them. I was told and discovered them to be entirely concerned with the business of my church’s General Assembly. Barring a few out of order characterizations of individuals, they contained little that could not be stated on the floor of presbytery; nevertheless, it is obvious that much of the diction and most of the substance would never be voiced aloud in that setting. It was a bit like a transcript of a football team watching the films of the upcoming opponents and preparing for the big game week after week. Who would they keep out of that room? The only people who shouldn’t be in on the discussion are the other side. The other side.
I overheard a lot of things about the National Partnership. As they say, I didn’t have the receipts. I didn’t even have a reason to go looking for receipts. I’m a nobody Ass. Pastor, more than occupied with life in arm’s reach. I heard all sorts of stuff about the NP. I didn’t disagree because I was too ignorant. I couldn’t agree with the references to names and events, but I followed the grammar and the logic. If X, Y, Z, then the characterizations were not clearly intemperate or hyperbolic. What is the National Partnership?
I guess the National Partnership™ didn’t want to tell me. I never was invited, which is their vestibule. It looks like someone who knew and had eight years of receipts wanted to tell me. When they did tell me (whoever they may be), they did it with nothing but receipts: the National Partnership is the Other Side. They don’t want me and mine and maybe similar to know what they are doing to win this game. They want to defeat whatever will stop them from winning this game. They don’t want to break the rules. They place a premium on good sportsmanship on the field. Of course, they don’t consider this just a game. This is about the kingdom of God, the gospel in the world, the future of the church. It is far more serious than any sports metaphor, and that’s why they aren’t letting the Other Side in on their activity and resources and goals.
There are men in the mix whom I have known for some time. There are men with whom I have long differed yet still cherish. There are men whom I admire, though they confuse me. The whole mix of men weighs on me. The whole mundane careful counting of National Partnership members, and National Partnership Presbyteries and National Partnership commissioners on Overtures, Review of Presbytery Records, Administration– the banal listing month after month nauseates me. I didn’t know this was going on, I’m not utterly shocked, but I just want to weep.
Men dear to me have been nodding along with all this: repeated mention of this small group speaking for the majority, an annual urgency of ensuring that the denomination’s true identity is represented faithfully by as much NP representation as possible on denominational committees, the obliviously counterpointing leitmotifs sounding so cacophonous when paired– unity in open-mindedness and exclusivity in secrecy.
The Voice of the Spirit without Continuing Revelation?
I have an elevated view of Christ’s reign in his church, one which exalts each officer to be unimpressed with himself and unconcerned with accomplishing his own will. Hubris about our goals is just as ugly as hubris about our persons. That is why several power exists only within the parameters of joint power. Joint power in church courts rests on the belief that these officers are each full of the Spirit, well instructed from the Scriptures and appointed by the Lord Jesus to wield his authority. The lowest, least and even lacking presbyter is unquestionably so invested– unless some members start determining who is actually legitimate, pretending that as individuals or as a faction we wield something of greater import than the Spiritual power culminating in the joint power of the court.
Just such an elevation– ugly presumption and hubris pregnant with harm– is what happens when a faction of officers conclude that they speak for the majority or the purity of the court. Only the living God– the Spirit within and the Father who searches hearts– can report on the majority without resorting to some kind of vote. One can contend for the purity of the church; however, one cannot do this by under the radar implementation– even incrementally. You must contend to inform and invigorate consciences. If you win enough votes else wise, even purported purity cannot be foisted on the church without doing her violence.
Read More

Our church order is not a jot and tittle creature, rather it sets frameworks in which elders deciding together have great discretion and latitude. The doom-cry and the hand-wringing against 23 & 37 is not in fact a criticism of what the amendments will do. It is a criticism of what presbyteries will do with the amendments.

My denomination is discussing rules regarding the ordination of men who are gay and celibate. About this you may have no interest, and you have ended up in the oddest corner. If you have interest, step here to get started.
I’m in the pass-it-fiddle-with-it-in-the-future camp. It’s the Book of Church Order, we do that. I don’t see problems with the language, but I recognize that use and observation could discover need for improvement. That is why the BCO is amendable, and why it receives amendments most years. The purported dangers advanced by some are not mandated by the actual language of these amendments. They could well occur even without these amendments. Some remind us that there are elders who wouldn’t ordain a graduate of San Salvatore Academy, because in the opinion of those knuckleheads SSA is an acronym for unordainable– and the same fretful voices pass on that the knuckleheads claim that is the meaning of these amendments. The advocacy of those simplistic absolutists will not advance a whit by asserting that their previous opinion is actually now codified in the BCO. People disagree about the construal of BCO (did you know that?), and they vote accordingly (did you know that?): these amendments don’t change who or how many construe SSA this way or that way.
Read More