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.