This will Set a New Standard by Which to Amend the BCO for Every Cultural Issue. Rebuttal: Almost every year the BCO is amended so that we are guided and aided in our practice as new issues with it present themselves.  These changes directly affect and guide the practice of the church. We have entered a new phase in American Christianity where the dominant worldview of the country no longer fits with a Biblical Worldview. In these changing times, it is conceivable that we will have to further clarify things in our BCO that were once taken for granted.  We must realize the times that we are in and adapt our processes to them as we always have.

It is not the intent of this article to redo the work of brothers in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) who have already defended Overture 23 and 37 on Biblical, Theological, Practical, Pastoral, and Semantic grounds.  Here are some resources to help in that regard.

I’d like to more pointedly address the objections to the Overtures on the basis that some claim they don’t belong in our Book of Church Order (BCO) and they would set a precedent that we haven’t seen before.  While this is not a critique of David Coffin’s article, many of these objections do appear there. For a line-by-line analysis of the Coffin article, see Pastor Aldo Leon’s Video.
Here are rebuttals to 8 common objections to the Overtures that say they Don’t Belong in our  BCO:
Objection 1: This is not the type of thing we put in the BCO.  The BCO is for Procedures for the governance of the Church.
Rebuttal: This does set procedures for the Governance of the Church.  But in as much this sets forth what we believe about Identity and Same-Sex Attraction (SSA), we have done this before in areas that require clarity, emphasis, or are absent from the Westminster Standards.

Defining The Office of Deacon and specifying it is only open to Men. (BCO 9, 9-3)
Defining What Marriage is and that it is only for 1 man & 1 woman. (59-3)
Saying that Women or Men can be Assistants to the Deacons. (9-7)

Objection 2: Our Constitution shouldn’t go beyond what Scripture Says are the Qualifications for Ordination
Rebuttal: BCO 21-4c sets the standards for Ordination and we do in fact further define, assess, and determine what to test men for Ordination.
For example, 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1 say that a man must be “able to teach/give instruction.”  We don’t solely leave that up to the Presbyteries to determine.  It is the BCO which tells Presbyteries HOW men must be trained (Seminary or other approved method) and WHAT must be tested. Scripture doesn’t tell us that a man must have an Master’s Degree or that he must show proficiency in areas like Church History and in the Biblical Languages.  Yet, those things are in the BCO.
We NOW need guidance on how to test and hold a men accountable to the Scriptural area of their Christian Maturity, Character, Communication, and Godliness with regard to a pressing societal issue that is redefining the Worldview of everything in our culture.  These Overtures do that. Additionally, they aren’t limited to SSA but also highlight the issues of addiction, abuse, racism, and financial mismanagement.
Objection 3: This Kind of Language is too Confusing & Subjective to Have in the BCO
Rebuttal: Overture 37 says “must not be known by reputation.”  This is Biblical, Pauline, and not at all confusing. Unless of course, we are willing to say we don’t understand what Scripture means when it says that a man must be “above reproach” and “well thought of by outsiders” in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. (Overture 23’s use of “profess an identity” is taken up in Objection 6.)
Additionally, the BCO has this type of language that is left for good and reasonable men to ascertain what it means given our shared commitments.  If those shared commitments can’t guide us in the application of these Overtures, then we are hopeless in these areas which already exist as well:
16-3 – “everyone admitted to an office should be sound in the faith, and his life be according to godliness.”
18-2 – “consisting of testimonials regarding his Christian character”
9-3 – “shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.”
21-4 c – ““Trials for Ordination shall consist of: his acquaintance with experiential religion, especially his personal character and family management.”
Objection 4: This will Set a New Standard by Which to Amend the BCO for Every Cultural Issue.
Rebuttal: Almost every year the BCO is amended so that we are guided and aided in our practice as new issues with it present themselves.  These changes directly affect and guide the practice of the church.
We have entered a new phase in American Christianity where the dominant worldview of the country no longer fits with a Biblical Worldview. In these changing times, it is conceivable that we will have to further clarify things in our BCO that were once taken for granted.  We must realize the times that we are in and adapt our processes to them as we always have.
Objection 5: We have the AIC Report , we don’t Need them in the BCO
Rebuttal: The AIC report has no constitutional authority. We have already seen how it has been used to justify practices that it condemns because it allows for selective exceptions in practice.  That’s all some need to justify the wholesale use of the exception.  To some men the exception is the rule.  Adding them to the BCO will at least make the rule the rule.
Objection 6: We don’t Put Psycho-Sociological Language in the BCO.
Rebuttal: While rare, that’s not exactly true.  The BCO uses the word “feels” multiple times in places you would expect to see more objective words such as “reasons,” “determines,” or ‘believes.”  In 41-2 for instance, cases can be referred where the lower court “feels” the need for guidance.  Why does it not say “determines” or “believes they need guidance” or “reasons that it is wise that they receive guidance.”
Psychological or Psycho-Sociological language is the spirit of the day and it doesn’t seem to be abating.  Do we really believe that speaking of how a person “identifies” is any more socio-psychological than speaking of how a person or body “feels” about an issue?
Additionally, it is just the nature of documents to have the flavor of when they are written. The Westminster Standards have many clarifications that seem odd to our current contexts, until we realize the theological battles they were dealing with in their day which required that clarity.  When we read those sections we understand why they are there.
Objection 7: This type of change should be added to the Westminster Standards not the BCO.
Rebuttal: While rare, I have heard this.  First, the BCO is rightly where the Church defines how we test and ordain men.  Additionally, The Westminster Standards are documents that are a shared by many denominations. It would make no sense for the PCA to change them , thereby giving us a version unique to us. Further, the precedent has been set, that we don’t do that.  We didn’t add our understanding of Deacons to the WCF, but we put it in the BCO.
Objection 8: This won’t fix or change anything regarding the problems that people are seeing in the PCA.
Rebuttal: That may or may not be true.  But Officers in Christ’s Church are called to more than this type of argument based on pragmatism.
Conclusion
The Overtures are in line with the AIC Report on Human Sexuality. In as much as this issue is serious enough to warrant a Study Committee and Report, it is all the more important that these principles be placed in our Constitution.
More Reading:

George Sayour is Senior Pastor of Meadowview Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Lexington, NC. This article is used with permission.

Written by Benjamin T. Inman |
Friday, January 21, 2022
The rubric of Overture 23 is a common sense Presbyterian adaptation to our context. It does not promulgate a stricter sexual ethic or a narrower view of sanctification. It specifies qualifications for office exactly where they may well be misunderstood or challenged. Our society has largely and even unconsciously adopted new corrupt assumptions about homosexuality… Aspirants for office who do not share our convictions should have clarity from the start: the PCA is not congenial to what is affirmed in various evangelical connections. This is not shocking news in general, although it may be acutely offensive given the topic specified. Some people hate this more than predestination.

A discussion offered for the deliberation of Eastern Carolina Presbytery(TE Benjamin T. Inman, Assistant Pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Fuquay-Varina)
(I address an argument recently offered for voting down Overtures 23 & 37. While I have not heard it expanded so directly, it has been implied in various discussions. It strikes the target.
“In the past, we have trusted local sessions entirely as to the character of their candidate they are putting forward for licensure and ordination. I don’t want that to become a practice on the floor of Presbytery, where a young man may stand before a room full of men he does not know and don’t know him. The local session is the right place to determine fitness for office with regard to the character requirements set forth in scripture.”
It is heartening to hear reference to the actual point of the amendments. While Overture 23 places specific attention on homosexuality, neither amendment addresses pastoral practice regarding any notorious sin. Rather than the nurture of members or even the discernment for receiving members, both amendments address only the qualifications and examinations for office. Sadly, the quoted argument is at odds with our polity and demonstrates our need for reform–all the more urgent in our corrupt context. The offered amendments for the Book of Church Order (BCO) chapters 16 and 21 stipulate just such reform.
Why These Overtures Matter
23
Overture 23 gives a rubric for homosexuality in assessing officer candidates. It does not address the controversy of Revoice, although it does represent a view in contrast to some points elaborated in those conferences. This rubric would not be cited for the pending SJC case about Memorial PCA’s hosting of the first Revoice conference. Qualification for office is simply not relevant there. Nor does it attempt an after-the-fact reconsideration of the recent SJC decision regarding Missouri Presbytery’s investigation of TE Greg Johnson. One member of that SJC panel has opined from his well informed position that the amendment of overture 23 would not have changed the outcome. Despite the furor, sex and such is not the point of the amendments.
The rubric of Overture 23 is a common sense Presbyterian adaptation to our context. It does not promulgate a stricter sexual ethic or a narrower view of sanctification. It specifies qualifications for office exactly where they may well be misunderstood or challenged. Our society has largely and even unconsciously adopted new corrupt assumptions about homosexuality. Increasingly, evangelical opinion and institutions demonstrate an assimilation to these aberrant views; consequently, there is good reason for the PCA to specify its qualifications for office. Aspirants for office who do not share our convictions should have clarity from the start: the PCA is not congenial to what is affirmed in various evangelical connections. This is not shocking news in general, although it may be acutely offensive given the topic specified. Some people hate this more than predestination.
More happily, the PCA too can repeat the apostle and say of candidates for office, “and such were some of you.” Men for whom homosexuality appears among the “earthly” things which they must put to death (Col 3:5), these men should have clarity as well. They should know: no shame or suspicion will attend being an example to the flock of God’s “perfect patience” to the “foremost” of sinners (1 Tim 1:14), though they replace Paul’s ringing “blasphemer” with a frank “homosexual.” They should be no more embarrassed in disciplining homosexual sin than was Paul in excommunicating men “that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim 1:20).
37
Overture 37 directs presbyteries for examinations in the ordination of teaching elders. The topic is NOT homosexual Christians in the PCA but PCA officers in a precipitously degenerating society. As the ferment regarding racism, degradation of women and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable pricks our conscience with a longing for past healing and future fidelity, the PCA does well to question the rigor of officer examination. A renewed purpose and more careful process is recommended not only by doubt about the past. It is all the more commonsensical in a society with diminishing moral constraints in general, a society which is arguably most conspicuous in normalizing sexual corruption by simplistic correlation of consent with subjective identification.
The amendment of BCO 21 stipulates careful examination with attention to notorious matters (including but not circumscribed by sins sexual, relational, racial and financial). The specified matters have become observably notorious over the recent many years in the scandalous failures of Evangelical leaders, congregations and institutions. The scandal cannot be blunted: the adjectives evangelical, Spirit-filled — even Biblical — are no longer reassuring public marks of professed identity. Evangelical sins grieve us to remember semper reformanda,– which includes both the mysterious fecundity often called revival or renewal, and the clarifying reassertion of principles and practices regretfully neglected.
Presbyterian polity– practiced by faith, and not by rote— is our denomination’s declared method to deter such shamefulness and harm. We believe that presbyterian governance– which is to say presbyterian ministry and mission– is not necessary for the existence of the church but for the well being of the church (BCO 1.7). If the church did not exist, it could not be so powerfully and publicly shamed; the issue is her well-being, her wholesomeness. Without disdain for the numerical majority of evangelicals who differ on the matter, we rightly and with expectation pray that God will bless their well-being without presbytery. The Presbyterian Church in America, by conviction– as grateful heirs of the church that replaced Bishops with Presbyteries– we claim to stake the matter on the officers serving rightly and faithfully in submissive plurality. For the PCA, the qualifications of officers are a fundamental for fidelity. This is why the amendments of Overtures 23 and 37 matter.
Why These Overtures are Reform
As do many, the argument here under review assumes that the BCO is presently sufficient. Sadly, it actually assumes practice at odds with that very standard. A question put to our presbytery must not be decided by contradiction of our standards– in the guise of wisdom. While I will go on to criticize it, I appreciate the argument’s attention to the actual point of the amendments. In this, it serves deliberation well. For better consideration, I repeat it:
“In the past, we have trusted local sessions entirely as to the character of their candidate they are putting forward for licensure and ordination. I don’t want that to become a practice on the floor of Presbytery, where a young man may stand before a room full of men he does not know and don’t know him. The local session is the right place to determine fitness for office with regard to the character requirements set forth in scripture.”
The argument’s logic is coherent and champions a laudable concern; however, it ignores our polity. Look, there, that’s what a rubber stamp looks like when it has been well used. By arguing earnestly in the opposite direction, it demonstrates our need for reformation of both order and ardor.Read More

God has preserved his written word by his singular care and providence, with great accuracy and in great purity. Despite its complexities, preservation by ordinary providence in both special and general modes (though we cannot always discern the difference between these two) seems to be the best theological account of providential preservation based on the biblical data.

Christians believe that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). But what has God done to preserve his written word? In particular, what is the relationship between God’s work of preservation and the work of sometimes sleepy scribes, whose pens might slip, and whose parchments might disintegrate? The concept of “providence” can help us here. What does it mean to say that God has preserved the text of Scripture “providentially”? And what degree of textual preservation does a biblical assessment of the work of providence give us reason to expect?
What is Providence and How Does it Work?
“Providence” is not itself a word found in the Bible. But it is a theological term that sums up Scripture’s teaching about one particular work of God. This work includes the biblical concepts of God’s purpose (prothesis, πρόθεσις), foreknowledge (prognōsis, πρόγνωσις), and predestination (proorismos, προορισμός). The word “providence” itself (which has the etymology of pre-seeing) is sometimes linked to the introduction of God as “Jehovah Jireh” or “the Lord who sees/provides” in Genesis 22:14.
The thirteenth-century theologian Thomas Aquinas defined providence as God’s ordering of all things towards their end. He further distinguished two parts to this “ordering”: (1) God’s eternal arrangement of all things, and (2) his temporal execution of that order by means of his government of the universe (Summa Theologica, I.22.1). After the Reformation, many Protestant theologians basically accepted Aquinas’s definition, commonly discerning three elements of God’s work of providence in the world: preservation, concurrence (i.e., co-operation with secondary causes), and government. It’s important to notice that providence encompasses all things: in the most basic sense, if something is (or happens), it is (or happens) providentially.
Two Methods of Providence
Can we be any more specific? Here we may introduce two useful distinctions, which are frequently misunderstood or confused. Theologians distinguish first between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” providence. This distinction is about the method of providence. “Ordinary” providence perhaps sounds boring, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate something humdrum: the term comes from the Latin ordinarius, which means “according to rule.” In this case the “rule” is God’s own, which we find established in the divinely given laws of nature. In his ordinary providence God works through and according to creaturely means. For example, your birth was hardly a boring or everyday event, but it was very much part of ordinary providence.
Extraordinary providence, on the other hand, is outside, above, or against regular, creaturely means. We see this in the biblical miracles. When Jesus walks on water, that is outside or beyond God’s normal way of ruling over the physics of water. The really key thing to remember is that, whether God’s providence is ordinary or extraordinary, it does not change the fact that God is always working, and his work is always praiseworthy. All God’s works praise him, and should lead us to bless his name (Ps. 145:10).
Two Modes of Providence
A second distinction (found, for example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 5:7) is sometimes made between “general” and “special” providence.
Read More
Related Posts: