Does the PCA Ordain Homosexuals? Well, “Yes, But” or “No, But”
When asked, “Does the PCA ordain homosexuals?” we cannot say, “We can neither confirm nor deny that the PCA ordains homosexuals.” We must either say, “Yes, the PCA ordains homosexuals, but men must claim celibacy from homosexual conduct in order to ordained,” or we will say, “No, but there may be men who count that amongst the temptations they resist.” Put succinctly, we will either be a “Yes, but” or a “No, but” denomination.
Overture 15, answered by General Assembly in the affirmative as amended, places Item 1 before the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Item 1 proposes the addition of a new, fourth paragraph to the Book of Church Order (BCO):
7-4. Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
In what follows, I’ll argue that Item 1 should be answered in the affirmative, for four reasons. The addition of this paragraph is (1) appropriate and (2) needed; (3) the issue it seeks to address is unavoidable; and (4) voting in the negative perpetuates one problem and creates another.
Overture 15 Is Appropriate
First, it is appropriate to add this paragraph to BCO Chapter 7: Church Officers-General Classification. Each paragraph in Chapter 7 deals with the disqualification of someone who may be accepted as a legitimate candidate for ordination in another denomination, but not in ours. Over its history, the PCA has used Chapter 7 to clarify whether church offices are open to charismatics, women, and those preferring a different church government.
Let’s take each paragraph in turn. From 1789, American Presbyterians have rejected the continuation of miraculous gifts. But the 1973 proposed text lacked a statement about gifts related to new revelation, something the PCA wanted to address directly. The second General Assembly adopted a pastoral letter on the issue suggesting that “any view of the tongues as experienced in our time which conceives of it an experience by which revelation is received from God is contrary to the finalized character of revelation in Scripture.” Unsurprisingly, then, the final sentence of BCO 7-1 says, “Such officers and gifts related to new revelation have no successors since God completed His revelation at the conclusion of the Apostolic Age.” PCA History notes, “The current PCA text dates to 1974 and the wording of this paragraph is that which was proposed by the Ad-Interim Committee on Charismatic Gifts.”
It’s appropriate for the PCA to inform those who think they have a special gift of divine revelation that they cannot seek ordination in the PCA. That’s not to exclude them from a PCA church; it’s to be helpfully honest about what they can expect. Remember, Chapter 7 of the BCO is on church officers, not on church membership or attendance.
Similarly, it’s appropriate for the PCA to inform women who think they are called to ordination that they cannot seek ordination in the PCA. Hence this sentence at the end of BCO 7-2: “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.” The change occurred in 1980. Since that time, women have not been excluded from PCA churches. On the contrary, they have flourished. Remember, Chapter 7 of the BCO is on church officers, not on church membership or attendance.
Finally, BCO 7-3 notifies would-be archdeacons, archbishops, cardinals, and popes that office holders in the PCA cannot “usurp authority” in the church, by claiming more than one vote in a church court, and that they cannot “receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scriptures.” That’s not to exclude them from a PCA church; it’s to be helpfully honest about what they can expect. Remember, Chapter 7 of the BCO is on church officers, not on church membership or attendance.
Given the multiyear conversation about homosexuality we have had in the PCA, it’s appropriate for the PCA to speak on this issue, and the seventh chapter of the BCO is the place to do it. To put it another way, even if you think this particular change should be rejected, its location in the BCO can’t be a reason to reject it. If it’s needed, it’s appropriate to place this sentence in BCO 7, as that chapter serves as the place to clarify, lovingly, those who cannot pursue ordination in the PCA. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here.
Overture 15 Is Needed
But is it needed? That’s the pressing question. The answer is yes. This paragraph achieves the compromise we have been seeking.
Though I voted for it on the floor of General Assembly, I did not add my name to the minority report as a member of the Overtures Committee, in part because I wondered whether Overture 15 was tight enough. I worried that this overture could provide an admittedly hypothetical person with the following defense: “I should be ordained, in spite of being completely beholden to homosexuality, simply because I do not describe myself as a homosexual.”
I think my initial reservations show how the language of this paragraph is a helpful compromise. Its adoption can help heal the divisions we face in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Think about the two sides of this controversy. One side of the debate worries we are sliding into gospel-abandoning cultural accommodation. I share that concern. It’s always a threat. But the other side of the debate fears we are illegitimately and ungraciously tightening our ordination requirements in a misguided culture war. I share that concern, too. It’s always a threat.
Overture 15 addresses both these concerns. This paragraph may not make anyone completely comfortable, but that’s a feature, not a bug. We are a deliberative assembly, after all.
First, saying that the PCA disqualifies some men because of what they say about themselves shows one side of the debate that the PCA is still a denomination willing to speak with the Bible against the culture. They can rest assured that Presbyteries in large metropolitan areas will not overlook an issue that has caused public scandal in their churches.
Similarly, focusing on what a man actually says avoids the concerns the other side has raised about witch hunts and psychobabble language. If a man has engaged in same-sex activity in the past or struggles against current same-sex attraction in the present, the addition of this fourth paragraph will serve as a protection for him if he seeks ordination. Saying that a man does not now describe himself as a homosexual mitigates against a Presbytery’s inappropriate allergic reaction to this particular sin. Those on this side of the debate can rest assured that, if this overture passes, then Presbyteries in Southern, seersucker parts of the country cannot illegitimately raise the requirement for holiness on this particular sin by itself.
Presbyteries should affirm Item 1, as Overture 15 helpfully addresses an issue we must address.
Overture 15 Addresses an Unavoidable Issue
Let’s be clear: This issue is unavoidable. If Item 1 fails, does anyone really think we won’t face other overtures again next year? There may be some who say they will always vote against any proposed change to the BCO that mentions homosexuality. I find this commitment demoralizing and unwise.
First, I find a commitment never to speak on this issue demoralizing because — forgive me — I want to stop talking about it. We have spent a not insignificant amount of time discussing this issue, and I don’t think I am the only one growing weary. We have been discussing it since 2018. Students can graduate from college or medical school in four years, and law school in three. Can’t we find something new to argue about?
Second, I find a commitment never to add language in the BCO on homosexuality unwise. Such an attitude preemptively denies what we hope to achieve in a deliberative body. If it’s not this particular overture, then what about something next year, or the year after that? It’s also unwise because if the principle is simply that we can’t speak against the ordination of any particular group, it cuts against the grain of the three paragraphs already in BCO 7. It also suggests that we may not need to add another paragraph at some time in the future about another issue, which is something we shouldn’t rule out in advance.
I am hopeful that the addition of this paragraph in the BCO will end our multiyear debate.
So, in summary, Item 1 is appropriate and needed, and it addresses an issue that is unavoidable.
Answering Overture 15 in the Negative Perpetuates One Problem and Creates Another
Now let’s turn from the benefits of answering this proposed amendment in the affirmative to the costs of answering it in the negative. Answering Item 1 in the negative will perpetuate one problem and create another.
First, answering this item in the negative will continue the confusion of what is expected of men who have same-sex attraction as part of their biographies. Continued uncertainty does a disservice to those coming forward for ordination. A man with a sensitive conscience may think himself ineligible for ordination when, in fact, he would sail through ordination in any Presbytery and could even serve as a model for holy living.
Imagine a man who is forthright about his struggles, in the appropriate context, but who affirms, along with the justly acclaimed Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality, that “we name our sins, but are not named by them.” This man would never describe himself as a homosexual; adding this paragraph in the BCO will help him. Voting against this proposed addition deprives him of guidance and leaves us all in a crisis of ambiguity.
Second, we should recognize that answering this item in the negative will generate a new problem. The General Assembly has placed the denomination in a precarious position — in a way I did not realize when we voted last summer. If we say we will not add a paragraph saying that “men who describe themselves as homosexual” are disqualified from holding office, then it suggests, though it does not logically entail, that the PCA is comfortable with men describing themselves as homosexuals. I say “suggests” and not “entails” because to reject the addition of something does not require anyone to accept the addition of its opposite.
Even still, voting in the negative will suggest to people that the PCA is comfortable with its officers calling themselves homosexuals. When asked, “Does the PCA ordain homosexuals?,” we cannot say, “We can neither confirm nor deny that the PCA ordains homosexuals.” We must either say, “Yes, the PCA ordains homosexuals, but men must claim celibacy from homosexual conduct in order to ordained,” or we will say, “No, but there may be men who count that amongst the temptations they resist.” Put succinctly, we will either be a “Yes, but” or a “No, but” denomination.
Item 1 places before us a stark choice: Will we be a yes-but or a no-but denomination? “Yes, we ordain homosexuals, but . . .” or “No, we don’t ordain homosexuals, but . . .”? Will we be a denomination that ordains men who call themselves homosexuals, with caveats, or will we be a denomination that does not ordain such men, with caveats?
I voted in the affirmative on Item 1, because I think the PCA is a no-but and not a yes-but denomination. If we add this paragraph to the Book of Church Order, we will be able to say, when asked whether the PCA ordains homosexuals, that anyone calling himself a homosexual is disqualified for office, per BCO 7-4. If we do not add this paragraph, our people will continue to wonder what kind of denomination we are — and I will, too.
James Bruce is a professor of philosophy at John Brown University, the director of the Center for Faith and Flourishing, and an associate pastor of Covenant Church PCA in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
-
Resting in God’s Sovereignty
Most believers learn to trust in God’s sovereignty; but how many of us actually rest in it?
O LORD, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O LORD, You know it altogether. (Psalm 139:1-4)
While intellectual assent is an important building block of our faith, there’s a much greater level of spiritual growth available to anyone passionately pursuing God. It’s through this heartfelt pursuit that we can experience a restful, Spirit-led freedom that the world can’t begin to comprehend. Freedom from stress, worry, sorrow, anxiety, and fear. Freedom to be filled with an inexpressible joy and deep-rooted peace that only the Lord can provide.
But what about those twists and turns?
Much to our chagrin, unexpected news and circumstances are indelibly baked into our daily lives. And our attempts to “control” our routines with checklists and calendars is an exercise in futility. The truth is we’ll never escape life’s unforeseen events. They’re as certain as the sunrise.
Have you ever stopped and considered that God is never caught off guard? When we’re surprised, His sovereignty remains steadfast. When we’re startled, He reigns supreme. When we face the unpredictable, His preeminence perseveres. -
Everything I Need to Know about Revelation I Learned in the First Eight Verses
You are already well equipped to productively read this wonderful book. You don’t have to understand it all to get something out of it. If you are able to immerse yourself in it and stand in awe of the Victorious Lamb, you are doing well.
There’s a saying I’m kinda fond of, though it’s not very sophisticated: “the beginning of things tells you stuff.” The idea is that writers tend to show their readers how to engage with and appropriate their work within the opening lines of their work. I’ve written about that elsewhere, and it’s true for most works, both ancient and modern, but it’s especially true of Revelation.
There is so much we learn about the book in the first few verses. Moreover, what we learn in that short space has a systemic impact on how we interpret the book. Revelation seems so difficult and confusing, but John has actually given us firm footholds in the opening of his letter. He’s guiding his readers in how Revelation is to be read.
Here’s an incomplete and “in brief” list of some of the essentials.Jesus is the first recipient of Revelation, not John. Most English Bibles title the book “The Revelation to John,” but that’s only partially correct. This is actually the very first thing that John tells us. This book constitutes “the revelation” that “God gave to him” (1:1), and the “him” in that clause can’t be anyone other than “Jesus Christ.” The verse goes on to explain how this book got into John’s hands. The Father first gave it to Jesus (and you can read about that in Rev. 5), then Jesus passed it along to John via an Angel, and John in turn wrote it down and sent it to the churches (Rev. 1:2). There’s a lot to unpack here, but remember when Jesus told the disciples that “not even the Son of Man knows the day or the hour” (Mark 13:32)? Well, the obvious next question is: when will that information be disclosed? Revelation is that disclosure, and it was disclosed first to the only one accounted worthy (Rev. 5:9). Then, and marvel at this my friends, the one worthy chose to disclose all these things to us (Rev. 1:19).
The first form of this Revelation was seen, not imagined, written, read, or heard. We haven’t left the first two verses yet. Revelation is “shown” to Jesus, then to John, then to the church. The first and primary iteration by which the Father revealed these things is through visions.
By contrast, the church at large only receives Revelation in its written form (1:19 again), not its visual form. John “writes what he saw.” The writing down of that which was first seen involves a kind of “conversion” of media. We’re moving from the visual, to the verbal. This in itself has multiple implications. Here’s two:First, we can note that communicating information visually and communicating information verbally require different skillsets. How do you “novelize” a movie? How do you describe the impact that a personal experience to friends without lamely concluding “you just had to be there?” It’s tough, and it requires a lot of artistic and literary and story-telling skill. John has those skills (he wrote a Gospel!), and he uses them to “show” the church what he saw.
Second, and equally importantly, there is a corresponding burden on the reader to now “recreate” the vision from the written word. John is supposed to write what he sees. The reader, in their turn, is supposed to “see” what is written. There’s a burden on both writer and reader here. Our burden is to visualize the word written. You have a ready tool for this, given to you by God. It’s called the “imagination.” Use it.Read More
Related Posts: -
Transgenderism: Escaping Limits
Written by R. R. Reno |
Friday, June 10, 2022
What we are witnessing in today’s transgender mania is the next step of “progress”: securing our freedom, not from inherited inhibitions and social censure, but from nature, and, indeed, from reality, which is why so much energy goes into controlling what people can and cannot say. This ambition to transcend the constraints imposed by nature sends transgenderism down the same spiritual grooves as transhumanism and doctor-assisted suicide. Both are body-freedom projects. If we see this connection, I believe we can better understand why transgenderism has gained so much influence so quickly.The progressive imagination envisions a limitless future. Karl Marx thought that modern industrial production marked a new epoch in human history. Amid explosive growth during the industrial revolution, he thought we were on the cusp of material abundance. Marx argued that if we rejected the artificial scarcity of competitive capitalism (revolution!), then the curse of Adam, the necessity of hard labor to ensure survival, could be overcome. In a world of limitless plenty, each would be free to develop every aspect of his personality without limits. In the communist utopia we could “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening,” while adopting the critical pose of the philosopher after dinner.
In 2022, our societies produce more wealth than Marx ever imagined. But few still believe the promise of communism and its dream of freedom from material limits. Aside, perhaps, from proponents of Modern Monetary Theory, most of us accept the enduring role of scarcity in economic life. Yet the dream of a limitless future has not gone away. By my reading of the last half century or more, it has migrated out of economics and class politics into dreams of a cultural revolution. Put simply, having given up on class war as a way to achieve a classless society, progressives now devote themselves to a bio-cultural war on the limits imposed by our bodies.
The 1960s were a key moment in this pivot from what was then called “the Social Question” to concerns about our bodies. For millennia, sex was bound up with marriage and children. This cultural link is rooted in biological reality: the intrinsic fertility of sexual intercourse. But the Pill and new moral norms in the Sixties severed the connection between sex and reproduction. Why, our cultural revolutionaries asked, should sex be limited by fertility? Second-wave feminism reinforced this trend, as did gay liberation. The first insisted that a woman’s body must not limit her professional and personal choices. The latter insisted that the biological reality of our sexual organs should not limit our choice of sexual partners.
In traditional cultures, society justifies itself by appealing to memory. Leaders claim to remain true to ancestors, origins, and divine laws. Modern culture is different. “Progress” is central to the story we tell about ourselves. And in this story progress means overcoming limits. For this reason, the power of the Pill to free women from fertility was widely embraced, and it served as the technological foundation for women’s liberation. The expansion of options for women, along with changes that freed homosexuals from censure, was welcomed as an extension of our long tradition of promoting political freedom from arbitrary power.
But overcoming our bodies is not the same as rebelling against kings or protesting against racial discrimination. In its essence, the American Revolution was a political act, as was the Civil Rights Movement. Neither one redefined marriage, altered what it means to be a parent, or rethought the natural family. By contrast, the sexual revolution, which is still unfolding, is metaphysical in character. As a rebellion against nature’s constraints, it touches on every aspect of what it means to be human.
Some people wonder why transgender issues got added to the agenda of gay liberation. Not a few feminists, and some outspoken lesbians, raised their voices in protest. I think they are naive. “Progress” is a wheel that must keep turning. John Dewey was perhaps the most influential progressive American intellectual of the twentieth century. At every step, he championed “boundless possibility.” Dewey recognized that progress must be open-ended. It seeks ever to overcome “fixed limits.”In view of this conception of progress as the never-ending quest for “boundless possibility,” we should not be surprised that we are being stampeded into affirmations of transgender ideology. It is the next step that overcomes the constraints imposed by our bodies. If our sexual organs should not limit our freedom to have sex with whomever we wish—and please note this assumption underwrites a permissive sexual ethic for heterosexuals, not just homosexuals—why should biological facts limit our understanding of ourselves as men or women?
Unlike earlier stages of the sexual revolution, which can be framed as liberations from traditional cultural constraints rather than as metaphysical rebellions, transgenderism concerns our bodies in an open and direct way. The hormones at work in the Pill operate invisibly. The hormones used to block puberty effect changes that all can see, and gender-reassignment surgeries even more so. For this reason, transgenderism has tremendous metaphysical significance as a symbol of successful rebellion. Its open warfare on the body promises final victory.
This fact explains why progressives are so fiercely loyal to transgender ideology. By forthrightly and blatantly denying that our bodies can and should limit our sentiments, feelings, and choices, transgenderism puts an exclamation mark on the sexual revolution. It also brings into the open the theological ambition of progressive cultural politics. At Woodstock and Stonewall, the push to revise moral norms aimed to achieve sexual freedom. But hormonal therapies applied to children have nothing to do with sexual desire, and subsequent surgical interventions mutilate the organs that are capable of sexual stimulation. Except in the case of middle-aged men who “transition,” the transgender phenomenon is not about sex (and I argue below that even for the middle-aged men it’s not, finally, about sex). Instead, what we are witnessing in today’s transgender mania is the next step of “progress”: securing our freedom, not from inherited inhibitions and social censure, but from nature, and, indeed, from reality, which is why so much energy goes into controlling what people can and cannot say.
This ambition to transcend the constraints imposed by nature sends transgenderism down the same spiritual grooves as transhumanism and doctor-assisted suicide. Both are body-freedom projects. If we see this connection, I believe we can better understand why transgenderism has gained so much influence so quickly.
Death is the greatest limit. And by this I do not mean simply our final moment. Rather, I take “death” to mean the downward spiral of life toward lifelessness. As someone on the far side of sixty, I’m aware that my body’s vitality is waning. Given my own experience, I’m rather confident that Bruce Jenner and other aging men embrace transgenderism as a therapy. Like Viagra, getting breasts is a technological way of revitalizing the body. Like Botox and cosmetic surgeries, it seeks to hit the pause button on aging. Very few progressive men or women want to mutilate themselves. But they are enchanted by the symbolism of transgenderism. This is especially true of Baby Boomers, for whom agelessness has become a singular preoccupation.
Boys can become girls and girls can become boys! This claim is now obligatory, and contradicting it brings opprobrium. As an assertion, it promises to liberate us from our bodies, allowing us to wiggle free of nature’s limits, of which death is the most dire. Transgender ideology says that gender is not our bodily sex—it is merely “assigned at birth.” This conceit encourages us to imagine that our bodily demise, too, is “assigned” rather than a given, and thus death can be “reassigned” rather than suffered. Doctor-assisted suicide should be understood as mortality reassignment. Our bodies do not determine when we die—we choose, just as a man can determine that he is a woman. Although transhumanism remains a techno-utopian dream, it promises more than “reassignment.” The ambition is to secure the indefinite deferral of death.
The promise of immortality is alluring, especially to educated, rich, and progressive Americans who imagine that they deserve every advantage in life, including the freedom to manage their mortality, if not escape it altogether. To my mind, this allure explains why activists, doctors, mental health protfessionals, politicians, and other adults countenance the mutilation of young people. Like Aztec elites, they sacrifice others to keep alive their theological ambition of overcoming all limits, even and especially those imposed by their own bodies, which are doomed to wear out.
I have emphasized the modern belief in “progress,” which underwrites never-ending efforts to overcome limits. Yet, the collective imagination of the West is shifting. Today’s watchword is “sustainability,” not progress. This preoccupation concerns more than the climate. Lots of responsible people anguish over populist and authoritarian threats. They establish websites and write endlessly, urging us to commit ourselves to the singular task of sustaining liberal democracy and the “rules-based international order.” This decidedly non-progressive call to conserve seems merited, given shifting public opinion. Polling suggests that young people believe their lives will be worse than their parents’ have been. Some are convinced that environmental catastrophe is around the corner.
The upshot is paradoxical. On the one hand, our collective mood is sour. The most we seem able to hope for is that tomorrow won’t be worse than today. That’s the spiritual meaning of “sustainability.” On the other hand, progressivism cultivates explicitly metaphysical and theological ambitions. Yes, liberals press for increases in the minimum wage and other traditional goals. But the lawn signs in university towns announce, “Hate has no home here.” This sentiment amounts to reversing the fall of man and proclaiming the kingdom of God. And as I have argued, today’s progressive cultural politics seeks to overturn the authority of nature. Thus we have at once widespread resignation—and God-like ambition.
It’s really very strange. One hundred thousand people die of opioid overdoses in a single year, and elites throw up their hands and do nothing. Meanwhile, they put untold millions into transgender activism and insist that the fullest resources of the medical-industrial complex must be employed to attain its goals.
I could go on with other strange paradoxes. But to my mind, the weird way in which American progressivism has been swallowed by a cultural politics that now revolves around transgender ideology is revealing. It makes evident that powerful elements of our society are engaged in an open war on reality. Ze and Zir are easy to mock and ridicule. But the now-ubiquitous use of “them” as a singular pronoun shows how deeply all of us are now implicated in the rebellion against bodily reality.
Read More
Related Posts:
