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:

McCord attempts to rehabilitate the Enneagram by using biblical language and is doing so with no one calling her out for it, other than myself (as far as I know). Even pastors who should know better are falling for McCord’s fake gospel Enneagram. By crafting the right-sounding terminology, it can sound biblical. With a modest amount of effort, I could make astrology sound biblical. All I have to do is transpose Christian meanings into astrological terms without changing the content of astrology.

A 2018 article, “The Rise of the Enneagram,” was recently brought to my attention by MCOI Senior Editor, Corkey McGehee. It has a surprising story that begins with fallacies by Beth McCord.
The article first references Enneagram “coach” Beth McCord, who, by her own admission, learned the Enneagram from New Age psychic Helen Palmer and at least five New Agers whom she named. Beth, along with her husband, Jeff, an ordained PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) pastor, founded Your Enneagram Coach in 2015. In 2019 Thomas-Nelson publisher produced her nine-volume set of Enneagram books. Beth also claims to teach a “gospel-centered Enneagram.” Apparently, by just incorporating the words “gospel-centered” or “Christcentric,” into a heretical occult tool you can have a million-dollar business (that is an actual fact for the  McCords). The writer, Tyler Huckabee (not related to Mike Huckabee) quotes Beth:
“They’ll say well that’s not in the Bible,” she says. “Well, the Myers-Briggs isn’t in the Bible. You know, there are lots of things that aren’t in the Bible but are still helpful.
“If they take the time to hear how we use it from a biblical perspective they’re like, ‘Oh yeah, this makes sense. There’s no problem there,’” she continues. “It’s when they have misconceptions that they get all freaked out.”
Beth employs false dilemma and red herring fallacies in this first response. The false dilemma is not whether it is in the Bible or not that determines the usefulness of the Enneagram. I know of no sound critique of the Enneagram that rejects it because it is not in the Bible (who would make such a ludicrous statement?). Moreover, it is a red herring to bring up the Myers-Briggs which, unlike the Enneagram, is not derived from spirit contact. Myers-Briggs is not in the same category as the Enneagram. It is claimed the Enneagram is a spiritual tool; Myers-Briggs makes no such claim. While Myers-Briggs claims to assess the personality, the Enneagram was never designed for that. The Enneagram is not to assess personality types but to figure out which of the nine paths to God each one must take to reconnect with their “true self.” In addition, Myers-Briggs is no longer viewed as valid by psychologists. Many have stopped using it.
McCord attempts to rehabilitate the Enneagram by using biblical language and is doing so with no one calling her out for it, other than myself (as far as I know). Even pastors who should know better are falling for McCord’s fake gospel Enneagram. By crafting the right-sounding terminology, it can sound biblical. With a modest amount of effort, I could make astrology sound biblical. All I have to do is transpose Christian meanings into astrological terms without changing the content of astrology.
Facts are not misconceptions. If McCord is referring to factual information on the Enneagram as “misconceptions,” such as its occult origins and the spirit contact involved, those are not misconceptions. If that is freaking people out, that should be a normal reaction for a Christian. Apparently, it does not freak out McCord. She did remove the names of her 6 New Age Enneagram teachers from her website once I made this broader public knowledge. It seems McCord may have thought those facts might have freaked people out.
The Flexible Enneagram
The article continues:
Ask 100 devotees of the Enneagram what it is and you’ll get 100 answers, most of them bespotted with vague language and words that don’t seem to mean much of anything, and several definitions contradicting one another so violently you wonder if these people are talking about the same thing. It’s a personality test. A path to wholeness. A way to process your trauma.
The above only validates my warnings that the Enneagram can be anything to anyone, that it’s flexible and fluid. The reason I made those claims is that the Enneagram has no standard or basis in reality or facts. So, it can become whatever one may want it to be or think that it is.
Ironically enough, a system designed to help people understand themselves is in danger of being misunderstood.
Even more ironically, the Enneagram was not designed to help people understand themselves. It was designed to help people deconstruct the false self (the belief they are a sinner) they were conditioned to be so they can uncover the true Essence of the Self which, in contradiction to Scripture, has never been separated from God.
Enter the Angel & Archetypes
The article moves on to Chris Heuertz, author of The Sacred Enneagram, who cautions against using the Enneagram as Beth McCord tries to use it, as a way to discover your personality. Give credit where credit is due – Heuertz is correct. Read carefully:
“It is helpful,” Heuertz admits. “It is clear that the Enneagram does sort of expose repeating patterns in human character structure archetypes that are sort of observable. But I think if you don’t really understand the essence of what’s behind it, you’re just fueling your own narcissism and you’re weaponizing something. You might be super interesting at a dinner party, but that’s not the point, you know?”
Well, then. What is the point?
“I usually try to say that [the Enneagram] is a sacred map of our soul,” Heuertz explains.
“And, you know this, the map isn’t the journey. The map informs the journey. So, if the Enneagram is a sacred map of our soul, if it’s a compassionate sketch of possibilities of who we can become, then what it actually helps us do is excavate our essence.”
Notice the language:

Archetypes
repeating patterns
what’s behind it (the Enneagram)
map of our soul
excavate our essence

Read More

Here are a few clear goals that all Christians should certainly strive for: Read the Bible every day, whether it is just one chapter or three or ten. It IS our daily bread you know. Make sure that you do eventually read all of the Bible. Too many believers may only know some of the New Testament, or some of the Psalms. They really should read and know about all of Scripture. As I say, I aim to do this once each year. Try to make use of various reading speeds and study options. Try to read an entire book, but also try to spend some key time on particular passages or portions of Scripture.

Yes, another odd title. But then again some of you are thinking that Bill is a rather odd fellow. But wait, there is a purpose in what I am writing here. And some folks might find that what I have to say in this piece to be sensible, even helpful. It has to do with how we read the Bible.
Hopefully if you are a Christian you are reading Scripture every day. As I say so often, if you read a little over three chapters a day, you can get through the entire Bible in a year. With 1189 chapters, the math is pretty easy enough to perform: it comes out to 3.26 chapters a day to be precise.
I say all this because of something I saw on the social media. A friend was talking about the rich truths he was gleaning from an Old Testament prophetic book. He had said this: ‘Going very slow, sometimes just a verse a day. With lots of prayer.’
I was tempted to answer him with a bit of humour and another quick bit of math: there are 31,173 verses (or thereabouts) in the Bible, so if you stick to one verse a day, it will only take you 85 and a half years to get through the whole Bible!
Of course he would not limit himself to just one verse a day every day, and the point he was making is perfectly valid: we need to study Scripture in depth. Sometimes just one passage of the Bible can really occupy our attention, and lead to many hours of deep study, meditation, and prayer. That is a practice we should all develop.
But what about the entirety of Scripture? Let’s say you do so much intense study of Scripture, that you get through only a few books of the Bible in a year. What happens to all the rest of it? It is possible to go so slow that you end up missing the forest for the trees?
That is where my title comes in. Perhaps we need to have a two-track Bible-reading plan, and/or two speeds at which we read Scripture. One option is to do the three-plus chapters a day to make sure you have gotten through the entire book at least once a year, while also doing some slower, in depth study of parts of Scripture.
You might decide for example that you want to spend six months on the book of Deuteronomy, or a few months on the Epistle to the Ephesians. That is fine.
Read More
Related Posts: