In light of our current crossroads as a denomination, I pray that we will be found faithful to uphold the faith once delivered, to realize the shoulders of the many faithful men who have gone before us and upon which we stand, and to not shy away from where the battle is most fierce but instead to charge forward by the power of the Spirit knowing that he who has called us is faithful.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is at a crossroads. The issues related to human sexuality have become a focal point for the past five years. And although great strides have been made to carefully explore these issues, there is still work to be done. We have communicated our appreciation for the Nashville Statement as biblically faithful at our 47th General Assembly. We then overwhelmingly approved the Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality at our 48th General Assembly. Our 49th General Assembly approved a proposed amendment that sought to amend our governing document (Book of Church Order) to better reflect our stated convictions on these matters as they relate to the general classification of officers. This proposed amendment failed to meet the threshold of approval among the presbyteries, and so we now have several requests to the General Assembly (overtures) to amend our Book of Church Order (BCO) to clarify even further our conviction and resolve on issues related to human sexuality. This year’s Overture 9 from Arizona Presbytery is just one of several that have been submitted. It proposes to add the following language to the BCO:
7-4.  Men who deviate – whether by declared conviction, self-description, lifestyle decisions, or overt practice – from God’s creational intention for human sexuality are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
It is my intention here to give helpful insight into the principle and intention of this overture so that our commissioners might see best what this overture brings to the table. I crafted this overture in conjunction with my Session, and it was discussed among several other Teaching Elders in our presbytery before being brought to the floor of presbytery for a vote.
One challenge we’ve noticed with these types of overtures is related to the proper placement of the amendment in the BCO. This seems to be one of the more contested issues among those convinced that an amendment on these matters is desirable and necessary. Where do you place such an amendment? My argument for chapter 7 would be simply that this chapter deals most fundamentally with the classes of officers (elder and deacon), including setting various general constraints upon these offices. This overture necessarily follows BCO 7-2, which states, “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only,” and, since the content is dealing with a further restriction upon these offices, it necessitates an additional paragraph, much like what BCO 7-3 accomplishes related to ecclesial titles. Therefore, chapter 7 seems the most helpful and natural place for this type of restriction related to officers to be stated.
Regardless of the placement, however, I believe this overture and the others submitted will give helpful and necessary fodder for our Overtures Committee to chew on, so that we might together craft governing language that will seek to do what is in accordance with our vows as elders, to “strive for the purity, peace, unity and edification of the Church” (BCO 24-6). So, in light of these things, let me walk through the language of this overture so we can best understand it as we prepare for the work of our 50th General Assembly.
“Men who deviate”
The key word of this overture is “deviate,” upon which the principle of the overture is set forth. Here is the principle: Define the standard to expose the deviation. We need language that bolsters our ability to see deviations, rather than language that names and even describes a limited number of deviations. When we do the latter, we open ourselves to either: A) frequent amendments to our BCO based upon aberrant cultural developments and/or B) the inability of our courts to properly adjudicate matters pertaining to future deviations that we cannot now name or define. This proposal is different than previous proposed amendments and additions to the BCO in that it seeks to develop a procedural rubric for determining deviations from the biblical standard as they relate to officers in the PCA.
The Particular Categories
The short list of descriptive phrases found within the em dashes in the language proposed is meant to provide categorical insight into the focus of this provision. In terms of the purposes of this overture, these cover a wide variety of potentials and will give our courts helpful language to assess one’s conformity or lack thereof to our confessional standards, which rest on the biblical witness. Let’s take these in turn to explore the contours of these descriptive phrases. You will notice that each phrase speaks to the willful way in which someone is operating and does not impugn or presume upon one’s motivations.
“declared conviction”
The first is “declared conviction” which speaks to the professed, stated, or articulated belief of someone regarding these issues. It is important to note that this first category does not necessitate the need for one to struggle with these sinful proclivities themselves but rather is based on the substance of one’s declared convictions on these matters. If an officer or candidate is an advocate for positions that deviate in one way or another from God’s intention for human sexuality (i.e., sexual union, sexual intimacy, sexual attraction), then this declared conviction would be grounds for a court to bring discipline against a current officer or prevent a candidate from becoming an officer. For instance, an elder declares that same-sex sexual desire is not sinful. This would qualify as a deviation. Consider another example: During the initial examination, a candidate for gospel ministry states that an aberrant sexual orientation may be within God’s creational intention for human sexuality. This would be a deviation. It is important to note that this would implicate one regardless of their own personal experience with said desires, temptations, proclivities, etc. because of their conviction to affirm, support, or defend these deviant positions.
“self-description”
This term is one that has been the focal point of our recent controversy and was the emphasis of Overture 15 from 2022. What is in view here is the significance of the preservation of one’s mind and one’s words as an officer of Christ’s Church. In speaking of the way in which one describes themselves, our own Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality states:
To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term “Christian” is inconsistent with Biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). [1]
If we have stated this in the report related to Christians in general, then how much more so ought this to be the standard of our officers? The way in which an officer describes himself is important for the purpose of clarity and understanding among: 1) those he has been called to shepherd; 2) those under his care who may struggle with same-sex attraction; and 3) those under his care who know someone who struggles with these sinful proclivities. This is showing Christian love by not peddling the confusion of our culture but instead faithfully presenting ourselves in light of who we are in Christ.
This category is critical because of the need for our courts to determine if the way in which one describes themselves is out of accord with our biblical and confessional standards. Note that there are no “magic words” or shibboleth phrases that become landmines, but rather, a court is charged to superintend the overall way in which one is describing themselves to gain an understanding of whether or not they are deviating from God’s creational intention for human sexuality in their self-description.
“lifestyle decisions”
This phrase has attracted the most attention among those who have interacted with me directly regarding this overture. What is in view here are those decisions that are reflected in one’s life. Decisions that would expressly deviate from the divine intention for human sexuality (i.e., sexual union, sexual intimacy, sexual attraction). Such deviations would include, but certainly not be limited to: “spiritual friendship” (described as same-sex unions that are exclusive in nature, with the appearance of marriage, but are not engaged in sexual activity); transvestism (the presentation of oneself to seem like the opposite sex); transgenderism (a lifestyle in which one presents themselves out of accord with their biological sex, even through actions that may cause irreversible damage to one’s body); and queer culture (an adapted form of belonging that envisages one’s affiliations and community as made up by those who are transgressive in their sexual expression and lifestyle). It is worth mentioning at this point that some of these categories of “lifestyle decisions” are relatively new to our society and reflect in many ways the spirit of the age. It is not unreasonable to assume that these types of transgressions will only metastasize as the culture willingly moves away from any and all biblical moorings.
It is important that we understand that these lifestyle decisions are directly related to the way in which one is expressing their vision of human sexuality and would not include family decisions or marital decisions that fall well within the parameters of the Scriptures, such as adoption or remaining unmarried. These, in and of themselves, do not necessarily expose a deviation because they are not in violation of the biblical standard for human sexuality. In fact, in terms of adoption, we see that far from being a deviation, it is rather a marvelous parable of the gospel, as Paul states:
…you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:15b-17)
In terms of remaining unmarried, again, the Apostle Paul gives a vision of this for the Christian from his own life and encourages others to consider this way of serving the Lord. He states his reason for this clearly when he says:
I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:35)
The Apostle states that there is a God-glorifying way to remain unmarried that does not violate God’s creational intention for human sexuality (i.e., sexual union, sexual intimacy, sexual attraction) but rather upholds it, honors it, and puts forward a vision of Christian chastity. An unmarried man living a chaste life shows fidelity to God’s creational intention for human sexuality. This is not a deviation. This is true whether this has occurred in widowhood, until one is eventually married, or even if one remains unmarried for their entire life. A deviation would consist of a man who is unmarried pursuing sexual intimacy or sexual union, which God intended for one who is married. A deviation would also include a man who is unmarried entering into a vow of celibacy or if a man were to put off marriage in an inordinate manner.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
The thing that unites these groups is neither concern for Arab lives nor a respect for Islamic culture. They are united only in wanting to tear down. In short, these protests are a manifestation of the Mephistophelean spirit of negation or, in religious terms, the spirit of desecration. To borrow from Marx, all that is holy must be profaned. What is to replace it—Shariah law, drag queen story hour, Judith Butler reading groups—is anybody’s guess. There is no agreed moral vision here. There is only consensus on a hatred of Jews, of Israel, of America, and of what is. And ironically, it comes from those who enjoy some of the greatest privileges that America has to offer.

The recent pro-Palestinian student protests on elite university campuses across the country offer fascinating, if somewhat depressing, insights into the state of modern American culture. It is not so much that the lunatics have taken over the asylum as the kindergartners have taken over the nursery.
First, society takes the attitudes and antics of the young far too seriously. In an era when we are reliably informed that adolescence persists well into the twenties, it is strange that we deem the views of anyone under the age of thirty to have any real significance or merit. Yet it seems to be an unspoken assumption that young people, especially young, angry, and opinionated people, are to be indulged as important. World leaders were clamoring to have cringeworthy photo ops with Greta Thunberg when she first rose to prominence. Thunberg types now abound on the left and right of the political spectrum. They often combine their ill-informed opinions with a confident youthful extremism that should be summarily dismissed or mocked without mercy rather than featured on the news.
This exaltation of youth is simultaneously the exaltation of ignorance and incompetence. Early claims of Israeli occupation of Gaza and the continued sloppy use of the language of genocide, fueled by people at the U.N. who could benefit from using a dictionary, are two obvious examples of the former. As for the latter, when, for example, did adult revolutionaries hold hunger strikes lasting a whole twelve hours or seize buildings and then demand that the university authorities give them food and water? I have no affection for Che Guevara, but he did at least spend time in a Bolivian jungle while trying to foment revolution. I presume he never once considered whining to the Bolivian government about the harsh conditions of jungle life and had to find his own food and water. A cynic might say that even our revolutionaries are pathetic these days.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Nicholas T. Batzig |
Monday, June 26, 2023
The doctrine of positional sanctification teaches that we are already perfect in the perfectly holy One. While our progressive sanctification is very imperfect in this life, we are assured that God will bring to completion what He began in us because the Son of God became the perfectly sanctified One for us. In Hebrews 7:28 we are told that the Son was “made perfect forever;” then in Heb. 10:14 we learn that “by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” 

The late Professor John Murray taught the significance of understanding the doctrine of definitive sanctification. As he studied the exegetical statements of the New Testament that spoke of believers having been sanctified through the death of Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:11; Heb. 10:10, etc.), Murray suggested that “it is a fact too frequently overlooked that in the New Testament the most characteristic terms used with reference to sanctification are used not of a process but of a once-for-all definitive act,” and that  “it would be, therefore, a deflection from biblical patterns of language and conception to think of sanctification exclusively in terms of a progressive work.” Still many tend to think of sanctification as something entirely progressive, and, therefore, miss out on understanding one of the richest and most spiritually impacting gospel truths. In order for us to understand why both definitive and positional sanctification are two aspects of the doctrine of sanctification most frequently overlooked, it will help us to consider what they are, why they have frequently been overlooked, and how it ought to impact our Christian lives.  
What is Definitive Sanctification?
As he unfolded the meaning of definitive sanctification, Murray explained that certain portions of Scriptures, such as Romans 6:1-23, teach that “there is a once-for-all definitive and irreversible breach with the realm in which sin reigns in and unto death,” and “that our death to sin and newness of life are effected in our identification with Christ in his death and resurrection.” In further explaining how union with Christ makes definitive sanctification a reality, Murray wrote:
“It is by virtue of our having died with Christ and our being raised with Him in His resurrection from the dead that the decisive breach with sin in its power, control, and defilement had been wrought…Christ in his death and resurrection broke the power of sin, triumphed over the god of this world, the prince of darkness, executed judgment upon the world and its ruler, and by that victory delivered all those who were united to him from the power of darkness and translated them into his own kingdom. So intimate is the union between Christ and his people that they were partakers with him in all these triumphal achievements and therefore died to sin, rose with Christ in the power of his resurrection…”
When the Apostle Paul said of Christ that “the death that He died, He died to sin once for all” (Rom. 6:10) he was referring to something that happened to Jesus in His death, and which subsequently has had an impact on us by virtue of our faith-union with Him. While Jesus knew no personal sin, as our representative He subjected Himself to the guilt and power of sin. When He died, He died to the power of sin’s dominion. This is how we are set free from the power of sin’s dominion in our lives when we are united to Him by faith. Distinct from the blessing of justification–which deals with the guilt of sin–definitive sanctification deals with the power of sin.
Why Has Definitive Sanctification Been Overlooked?
One of the most basic reasons why definitive sanctification isn’t more widely taught and delighted in is that it was formulated and popularized by a professor at a highly academic Reformed seminary (one of the finest in all of church history) in the 20th Century. Additionally, you won’t find this doctrine explicitly taught in our historic creeds or our beloved Reformed confessions. That being so, Professor Murray was not contradicting the Reformed Confessions with his formulation; he was, in a very real sense, building upon what our Reformed forefathers had already said about sanctification–by means of exegetically driven doctrinal refinement. The Reformed church has commonly tended to shy away from doctrinal pioneering (except in the realm of eschatology), for the obvious reason that such pioneering has usually ended in a jeopardizing of the biblical doctrines that we have come to so love and embrace. But this is not the case with definitive sanctification. You will sometimes find hints of the truth of this particular doctrine in the writings of the Puritans and other Reformed theologians of bygone ages–generally placed within the realm of regeneration or progressive sanctification. It may rightly be said to stand at the head of progressive sanctification, as it has a logical priority to our being made more and more into the image of Christ; but, it must be distinguished from progressive sanctification because–like the doctrine of justification–it is a once-for-all decisive act of God.
How Should the Doctrine of Definitive Sanctification Affect Our Lives?
In Romans 6, the Apostle Paul makes two astonishing statements. The first came in the form of a question: “How can we who have died to sin live any longer in it?” The apostle’s rhetorical question could be reworded to give it its proper sense: “How are we who have died to sin able to live any longer in it?” We should understand that it is an impossibility that those who have died with Christ, by virtue of their union with Him, should continue living on in sin. The reality of truth of this doctrine for the Christian is that he or she is no longer a slave of sin. In union with Christ, we too have died, been buried and have risen with Him (Colossians 2:20-3:4). When He died, we died. When He was buried, we were buried. When He rose, we rose with Him. We have died to the dominion of sin, because He died to sin’s dominion. This is something different than that which we get in justification. In justification, we get the guilt of our sin removed, our sins forgiven and Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. In definitive sanctification we undergo a radical breach with sin’s dominion and power. This means that we should not and do not have to go on sinning.
The second astonishing statement is found in verse 11. When we are tempted to sin, we must say to ourselves, “I have died with my Savior and have been raised with Him. I am no longer a slave to sin.
Read More
Related Posts: