When Overture 23 uses the word “professing” it is clearly modifying the word identity. Confessing on the other hand is admitting that one still struggles with a particular behavior. Professing says, “This is who I am.” whereas confessing says, “This is what I do, but I hate it and my sin does not define me.”   Neither overture in any way discourages ordinands from being honest about their wrestling with remaining sin. In fact, the wording of Overture 37 presupposes that every man will continue to struggle with his sin and encourages the candidate to be transparent about God’s work of grace in his life.

In a previous article, we examined the first of the three “U”s leveled against Overtures 23 and 37 (O23 and O37); specifically, the assertion that both overtures are unclear and should not be approved by PCA presbyteries. In this article we address the other side of the “unclear” coin by asking: “Will O23 and O37 exclude any and all who struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA) from ordained ministry in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)?”
The First “U”—More on “Unclear”
Much of the “National Partnership Public Advice for Voting on Overtures 23, 37” (PA) opposition to O23 centers on the word “that.” To what does it refer? How far does “that” extend within the overture? Does it extend to that which precedes the first parenthesis or to all that follows thereafter? If I understand their question correctly, the writers are functionally asking:
Would O23 disqualify a man who professes an identity such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms regardless of his Christian conduct? In other words, is professing to be a “homosexual Christian” or a “same sex attracted Christian” by itself enough to disqualify a man from ordination? OR—
Would O23 disqualify only those men who profess such identities and are not “above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character”? If so, then are those men who profess to be “homosexual Christians” or “same-sex attracted Christians” able to be ordained so long as they affirm the sinfulness of their desires, affirm the reality of progressive sanctification, and pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sin?
If my rephrasing is basically correct, then I believe the question itself is guilty of setting up a false dilemma. The two options to which the PA artificially limits the reader are these:
Option 1. Those candidates/fellow elders within the PCA who are honest about their struggle with SSA will be immediately disqualified from holding ordained office along with any others who confess their struggle against “persistent sinful desires.” Referring to Overture 37, which deals with the examination of ordinands on their Christian character, the PA reads
The proposed addition to BCO 21 (O37) fails to provide clarity about what constitutes the disqualifying self-profession. Under these rules, any brother who self-professes any “remaining sinfulness” of “struggle against sinful actions” or “persistent sinful desires” puts his ordination in jeopardy – not necessarily because he is living a sinful life, but because he confesses that he still struggles with lusts, anger, ambition, family/work balance, bitterness, etc. The consequences of adopting this standard into our Constitution is either to tempt every man who wants to keep his ordination to be less transparent, and to put a weapon in the hand of every aggressive person or party that wants to control a church or a presbytery (II. 1).
In essence, the above quote believes that O23 and O37 are doomed to function as cudgels wielded by “aggressive persons” against SSA strugglers, and if passed they will not only force SSA strugglers to be less transparent when examined on their Christian character but also countless others who wrestle with lusts, anger, ambition, family/work balance, bitterness, etc. Needless to say, I respectfully disagree with the first sentence of the above quote; O37 is crystal clear about what constitutes a disqualifying self-profession (but more on that later). The second option the PA offers is:
Option 2. If a man professes to be a “gay Christian” or a “same sex attracted Christian” and is not living in a sinful manner but affirms the sinfulness of his desires, the reality of progressive sanctification, and is pursuing Spirit-empowered victory over his sin, then the phrasing of this overture inadvertently leaves space for ordained officers to continue to identify themselves as “gay Christians” or “homosexual Christians.” The follow up question then would be: “Aren’t these the very terms that so chafe the conservatives who voted up O23 and O37? How then can you vote for an overture that allows for the use of those terms that you categorically deny?”
As mentioned previously, there is a world of difference between identifying sin so as to mortify it and identifying by our sin. Hitching modifiers like “gay” or “homosexual” as sidecars to our Christian identity ought be unthinkable to believers as such terms obscure and minimize the work that Christ has done (justification) and is doing (sanctification) in our lives. If a Christian affirms that SSA itself is a sin, that progressive sanctification is real and true, and if he is pursuing Spirit-empowered victory over his sin, then in what world would it make sense for this person to continue to identify himself as a “gay Christian” or a “homosexual Christian” (or by any other sin for that matter)? For example, would a Christian who left a white supremacist prison gang be wise to refer to himself as a “white supremacist Christian” even after he’d been delivered from the bondage and guilt of that sin? Certainly not! Why? Because white supremacy is absolutely antithetical to what he now believes as a Christian (see Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek…”)! Why then would a repentant Christian continue to identify himself as a “gay Christian” even after he’d been delivered from the bondage of that sin? Some may say that I am advocating for language tests, but I am not. I only desire that my brothers on the other side of this issue be as careful with their language as they desire for me to be with mine.
Consequently, the second option can and should be dismissed immediately. If a man refuses to humble himself and refrain from using ambiguous and scandalizing identity language (e.g., “I am a gay Christian,” “I am a queer Christian,” “I am a transgender Christian”) it is either because he does not believe SSA to be a sin, or denies the reality of progressive sanctification, or is not pursuing Spirit-empowered victory over his sin or because he lacks the wisdom, discernment, and maturity requisite for holding ordained office.
Along these same lines, there is an all-important difference between “professing an identity” as a gay Christian and a man who “confesses that he still struggles with lusts, anger, ambition, family/work balance, bitterness, etc” (PA II.1). “Confessing” and “professing” are not identical terms and the PA’s using the two interchangeably reads like an attempt to obfuscate.
When O23 uses the word “professing” it is clearly modifying the word identity. Confessing on the other hand is admitting that one still struggles with a particular behavior. Professing says, “This is who I am.” whereas confessing says, “This is what I do, but I hate it and my sin does not define me.”[1]  Neither overture in any way discourages ordinands from being honest about their wrestling with remaining sin. In fact, the wording of O37 presupposes that every man will continue to struggle with his sin and encourages the candidate to be transparent about God’s work of grace in his life. Consider the wording of O37
Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. Each nominee must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending upon this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5; Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3; Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness, but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-14 11).
O37 does not disqualify a man from holding church office because he is a sinner, it only disqualifies those who are unwilling to pursue victory over their sin.[2] Contrary to specious claims made on the floor of GA, the language of O37 in no way tips its hat to Wesleyan Perfectionism or Keswick theology. The overture goes out of its way to say, “imperfection will remain.” Struggle, not sinlessness is the expectation of O37. So long as a brother who struggles with SSA can demonstrate that he indeed hates his sin, that he is depending upon the power of the Spirit in his fight against that sin and is bearing fruit in an exemplary fashion, then there is no reason to believe that O37 as written will disqualify such a man from ordained office. I struggle to find what is unclear.
The same is the case with O23. If a man denies the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or fails to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over his sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions, he is obviously not fit for office. However, if a man confesses that he struggles with SSA and affirms the sinfulness thereof, believes that God’s grace not only pardons but gives him power to war against his sin (progressive sanctification), and is pursing Spirit-empowered victory in every sphere of his life then this overture would say that such a man is qualified to rule in Christ’s church.
Therefore, those who claim that all SSA strugglers will be purged from ordained ministry if O23 and 37 pass would do well to abandon that line of argument. Neither the “intention” nor the “words written”[3] set up a second Great Ejection of those ministers who honestly struggle with and mortify their sin.
But, there is another word in O37 that the NP believes to be perilously unclear—reputation. What does “known by self-profession or reputation according to his remaining sinfulness” mean? During the minority report delivered at GA, RE Trevor Lawrence (the lawyer, not the quarterback) explained some of the minority’s reservations surrounding this particular word in O37.
Does the phrase “known by reputation” mean that the candidate must not be publicly known for acting upon same-sex desire or for embracing same-sex attraction as a good or morally neutral aspect of his fundamental identity? Or does the language in question mean that a candidate who discloses unwanted, repented of, and daily mortified same-sex attraction and has this disclosure publicized—whether willingly or unwillingly—is disqualified because his remaining sinfulness has become a matter of public knowledge and, presumably, part of his public reputation?
What if a candidate names his experience of same-sex attraction before his Presbytery and explicitly professes that his identity is in Christ, but an online outlet publishes a report of the disclosure of his same-sex attraction while inadvertently neglecting to mention his affirmation that his identity is in Christ? What if the omission of his affirmation of Christ-rooted identity is the work of malicious actors intending to spread a false report? Would these scenarios constitute a disqualifying reputation?
Or consider this possibility: a man practiced homosexuality prior to becoming a Christian, at which point he trusts the gospel, reorients his self-conception around his union with Christ, and even marries a godly Christian woman. Over the ensuing years, this man writes numerous faithful books to minister to others experiencing same-sex attraction, speaks to large crowds about same-sex attraction and the gospel, and reaches a global audience even as he experiences persistent and unwanted same-sex attraction. If such a man were to pursue ordination, would he be disqualified? He is recognized around the world as a Christian who experiences same-sex attraction. Though some presbytery members might claim that his fundamental identity is in Christ, could not others reasonably object that this man is “known by reputation…according to his remaining sinfulness”? Would the General Assembly wish to see this man deemed disqualified? What in Overture 37 would prevent it?
I must say that I appreciated this brother’s thoughtful questions. They have tremendous merit and they forced me to think. Below are my answers to the above questions
Question: “Does the phrase “known by reputation” mean that the candidate must not be publicly known for acting upon same-sex desire or for embracing same-sex attraction as a good or morally neutral aspect of his fundamental identity?” 
Answer: Absolutely. See O23.
Question: “Or does the language in question mean that a candidate who discloses unwanted, repented of, and daily mortified same-sex attraction and has this disclosure publicized—whether willingly or unwillingly—is disqualified because his remaining sinfulness has become a matter of public knowledge and, presumably, part of his public reputation?”
Answer: No, because every member of the PCA already publicly discloses that he or she is “sinner in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy” when they take their membership vows. To a degree, every Christian’s remaining sinfulness becomes public knowledge. But we mustn’t be known simply by that continued sinfulness, but by our daily repentance, by the work of the Spirit in our life. So even if the particular sin with which this brother struggles does become public knowledge, as long as he bears the marks of genuine repentance, he would not be disqualified from ordained ministry. He would simply be doing that which is expected of a genuine Christian who loves his Savior.
Question: “What if a candidate names his experience of same-sex attraction before his Presbytery and explicitly professes that his identity is in Christ, but an online outlet publishes a report of the disclosure of his same-sex attraction while inadvertently neglecting to mention his affirmation that his identity is in Christ? What if the omission of his affirmation of Christ-rooted identity is the work of malicious actors intending to spread a false report? Would these scenarios constitute a disqualifying reputation?
Answer: No, he would not be disqualified. Even he who was sinlessly perfect was subject to slander and false reports (e.g., Matthew 9:34; Mark 14:56, 59). Being above reproach does not mean that you are immune to accusation or reproach—it means that no amount of reproach will stick because your character is blameless and Christlike. No overture, no matter how precisely worded, can safeguard against every attempt to tarnish one’s good name. To be sure, examining committees and presbyteries need to be extremely discerning if they receive a negative report concerning a candidate’s character. It is imperative that they abide by the wisdom of Proverbs 18:13, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and his shame,” that they hear all sides of a story before taking action. But, in no way does O37 jeopardize this careful, prayerful process or necessitate a rush to judgement. Trust your committees and presbyteries to have the wisdom to discern truth from lies.
Question: “Or consider this possibility: a man practiced homosexuality prior to becoming a Christian, at which point he trusts the gospel, reorients his self-conception around his union with Christ, and even marries a godly Christian woman. Over the ensuing years, this man writes numerous faithful books to minister to others experiencing same-sex attraction, speaks to large crowds about same-sex attraction and the gospel, and reaches a global audience even as he experiences persistent and unwanted same-sex attraction. If such a man were to pursue ordination, would he be disqualified? He is recognized around the world as a Christian who experiences same-sex attraction. Though some presbytery members might claim that his fundamental identity is in Christ, could not others reasonably object that this man is “known by reputation…according to his remaining sinfulness”? Would the General Assembly wish to see this man deemed disqualified? What in Overture 37 would prevent it?
Answer: No. Notice that the minority report stops at “according to his sinfulness.” This is only half of the sentence and the omission of everything thereafter is significant. The rest of the sentence reads, “but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 6:9-14 11).  Again, the defining mark of a Christian is not that he is a sinner, it is the work of the Holy Spirit in his life. Clearly, the above individual has accepted the grace of Christ and is living in dependence upon the His Spirit. He “trusts the gospel, reorients his self-conception around his union with Christ, and even marries a godly woman.” His repentance is seen by all! What more could we ask for? He is exemplifying the kind of Christian character to which all of God’s people ought to strive. If selectively quoted, I can see how one might think O37 would disqualify such a man from holding office, but when the overture is considered as a whole I see no reason why this person could not be ordained and enjoy a fruitful ministry within the PCA.
In the next article we will address the second “U” leveled against O23 and O37— that they are Unnecessary. The PA has much to say about redundancy, the Confession, and the inclusion of time-bound, cultural language into our confessional standards; We’ll consider and answer these objections.
Stephen Spinnenweber is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Westminster PCA in Jacksonville, Fla.

[1] See Romans 7:15-25 for a picture of sanctified honesty and wrestling with remaining sin. See also Carl Trueman’s excellent treatment of identity vs. behavior as it relates to human sexuality in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, p. 51.
[2] “…with full purpose of an endeavor after new obedience” (WSC Q.87).
[3] Quote from the PA opening paragraph.

In keeping with the journalistic tradition of looking back at the recent past, we present the top 50 stories of the year that were read on The Aquila Report site based on the number of hits. We will present the 50 stories in groups of 10 to run on five lists on consecutive days.  Here are numbers 21-30.

In 2022 The Aquila Report (TAR) posted over 3,000 stories. At the end of each year we feature the top 50 stories that were read.
TAR posts 8 new stories each day, on a variety of subjects – all of which we trust are of interest to our readers. As a web magazine TAR is an aggregator of news and information that we believe will provide articles that will inform the church of current trends and movements within the church and culture.
In keeping with the journalistic tradition of looking back at the recent past, we present the top 50 stories of the year that were read on The Aquila Report site based on the number of hits. We will present the 50 stories in groups of 10 to run on five lists on consecutive days. Here are numbers 21-30:

The State of the PCA

It is very easy to conclude that a spiritual cancer has been in the body too long and that there does not appear to be anything that those who are committed to God’s Word can do.  We have tried and we have failed.  Certainly, God can do something to heal the cancer, if He chooses.  But the future of the denomination outside a miraculous intervention is bleak.

Christian Writers, Preachers, and Organizations That Promoted Francis Collins Should Break Their Silence

Many of these men and organizations regularly call the church to repentance. This would be a proper time to perhaps lead by example.

Dining Out on the Lord’s Day

Now for a blind spot to something no less obvious: Most elders in the Reformed tradition take exception to the Reformed view of Christian Sabbath recreation as taught in the Westminster standards. As unfortunate as that is, many among that number go even further by supporting going to restaurants and ordering out food on Sundays, which pertains not merely to the question of rest vs. recreation but to unlawful work on the Lord’s Day. Ironically, most elders would say they affirm the Confession’s Christian Sabbath position with respect to work; yet their views on transacting business with restaurants on the Lord’s Day end up contradicting their own theology and professed scruples.

The Standing Judicial Commission Just Violated the PCA Constitution and Standards—Again

The Bible I read gives a strong impression that the King and Head of the Church  looks none too kindly on this kind of brazen rebellion—especially when perpetrated by those who claim to be His shepherds.  “It belongs to His Majesty,” reads the BCO Preface, “from His throne of glory to rule and teach the Church…” 

“Presbyleaks” From a Business Analysis Perspective

From a BA perspective, if the NP asked about how to go forward, I would advise it to publish a purpose and mission statement compatible with PCA officer vows, accept all such within the PCA who desire to participate in order to grow in their understanding of PCA polity and practices, and do away with confidentiality as its functional methodology.  All of this would be workable, however, only after a public apology and due repentance for the way the group has conducted itself essentially as a denomination within the denomination over the past several years.

Exploring Overture 15 from the PCA General Assembly

This issue has caused disunity, confusion, and chaos in the PCA for far too long. If we desire that this particular sword should depart our house, then we will acknowledge that Overture 29 needs Overture 15 to be effective and pass both through our presbyteries. The two overtures go hand-in-hand. The one works through the other.

Overture from Hills and Plains Presbytery Asks the 49th PCA GA to Amend BCO 16 By Adding a New Paragraph

Hills and Plains Presbytery approved an overture at a March 5, 2022 Called Meeting, asking the 49th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America to “amend BCO 16 by adding a new paragraph using wording from the Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality.”

Tim Keller & Myxomatosis Christians

I don’t know a lot about Tim Keller, except by reputation. He seems to be a very fine man, and devout Christian. I couldn’t imagine saying a bad thing about him, but some of you Evangelicals who follow him more closely than I do might disagree. All I can say is that Winsome World Christians are failing to prepare themselves, their families, and (if pastors) their flocks for the world that exists today, and the world that is fast coming into being. Again, I am thinking of the pastor I argued with who believed that he didn’t need to speak about gender ideology to his parish (“I don’t want politics in my congregation”) because, as he explained, if he just keeps winsomely teaching Biblical principles, all will be well.

Response to Letter from Memorial PCA Member

In the church the right of the denomination to legislate or enforce qualifications for office has been met with the notion that individuals who feel called to ministry have a de facto right to it and that the church may not deny them that without unjustly depriving them; office is regarded as the property of the person who wants or holds it, not the property of the church that invests it with authority.

Lady Preachers in PCA Pulpits?

Being authentically presbyterian when an egalitarian culture is so decidedly against the truths of God’s word and his design for his church is hard. And though it is hard and unpleasant work, faithful churchmen must call to account those who would deviate from God’s blueprint for His church and her worship. 
Related Posts:

God’s Word doesn’t shelter us from the ugliness of human depravity. It’s right to explain to our kids (age-appropriately) what’s going on and how it points to our Redeemer. The temptation to avoid uncomfortable topics is real, but if we don’t speak with our kids about sexuality, we can rest assured the world will. Let’s resist any hint of shame culture that would cause embarrassment about the bodies and functions God created. Individual families need to decide when they’ll introduce things like biologically correct anatomical terms, the reproductive cycle, puberty, pornography, LGBTQ+ ideology, and other sexual developments and sins our children will face. But we must own our responsibility to teach them.

Whether you’re parenting toddlers, teens, or both, today’s sexual climate probably concerns you. I once heard parenting described as walking around with your heart outside your body [1]; that feels accurate. Parents face intense vulnerability as we strive to keep our dear children safe. Now that I have a teen and a ten-year-old, keeping my boys safe looks much different than when they were babies and toddlers. I’m no longer worried about them catapulting out of their crib or flinging themselves into a pool.
But the dangers they face as they grow older are even scarier. Will they cling to Christ amid an antagonistic culture? Will they continue to know who they are as boys—growing into men—made in God’s image to glorify him? Will they resist the dehumanizing and addictive lure of pornography? If they marry, will they commit to women who fear the Lord? Of course, I care about their physical well-being. But will their souls be safe?
More than anything, I long to rejoice in eternal glory with my sons as my brothers.
God Uses Means
It’s easy to look around at the world and let fear shrivel our hearts. According to a recent Barna survey, 73% of Christian parents are “concerned about their children’s spiritual development.” This concern isn’t groundless; our children are under attack (see 1 Peter 5:8). As Mark Sanders highlighted, so many of our youth are deceived and seeking purpose in identifying as LGBTQ+. What can we do to make sure our kids will be okay?
Being not sovereign, not omniscient, and not omnipotent, we can’t guarantee anything. Our parenting can’t secure any particular outcome for our children. Faithful Christian parents might, heartbreakingly, watch their children turn away from the Lord.
Yet God works through means. In his providence, godly parents are a gift to their children and instruments in the Lord’s hands. How can we parent our kids from a place of confidence in the Lord rather than fear? Here are some thoughts and practices I’ve observed in wise Christian parents that my husband and I seek, by God’s grace, to follow.
1.Trusting the Lord
Exhausted and defeated when my newborn wasn’t sleeping despite my having read, underlined, and applied all the baby book instructions, I agonized over what I was doing wrong. Don’t we all like a clear “do this, get that” sequence? But children are not programmable robots and only sometimes do what we expect.
Just as we’re saved only by God’s grace in Christ, not by our works, he is the only one we can rely on in all aspects of raising our kids. If they resist LGBTQ+ ideology and other sexual sins, it will be by God’s grace. This shatters my pride and gives me hope. If our children stand firm, praise Jesus—it’s his work alone. If they turn away, God is still good and accomplishing his plan in their lives and ours. I am finite and less good than God, the author of my children’s story as well as my own.
I am finite and less good than God, the author of my children’s story as well as my own.
The Judge of all the earth shall do what is just (Gen. 18:25) and calls himself “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex. 34:6b). This truth soaks comfort into a believer’s soul, helping us entrust our precious children to the everlastingly faithful Father. We can’t guarantee anything, and we certainly can’t save them—and this is good news, because we make terrible saviors. The hopeful reality is that they’re in the hands of the triune Creator, who is justice, mercy, and love.
2.Prayer
I’m happily convinced that praying for and with our kids is the best thing we can ever do for them. It’s better than all the discipline, school choices, family times, and device limits in the world.
Praying for Our Children
In Christ, frail humans are united to the One who spoke the universe into existence and keeps our breath circulating each moment. Prayer acknowledges that we are God’s, his way is best, and he is mighty. Before stating that “children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward” (v. 3), Psalm 127 begins with a foundational truth: “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain” (vv. 1–2). We can rest (“he gives to his beloved sleep”) because God is the builder and the watchman (v. 2).
Read More
Related Posts: