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 Ben C. Dunson |
Monday, April 15, 2024
Dawkins is the beneficiary of a political and legal system shaped over centuries by Christian principles of justice, human nature, and more. He appears blissfully unaware that he is sawing off the very branch suspending him safely above the mob of Islamists, radical leftists, and others, ready and willing to dispense with classical liberals like himself who only (rather ineffectively) impede their advance and triumph.

Perhaps to the surprise of many, Richard Dawkins, famed “New Atheist” of yesteryear, in a recent radio interview called himself a “cultural Christian.” He was quick to clarify that he is “not a believer” in the actual teachings of Christianity, but nonetheless told the interviewer “I love hymns and Christmas carols, and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.” This exchange was prompted by the discomfort Dawkins felt in the build-up to Easter seeing England full of lights celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.
Beyond mere aesthetics, Dawkins also stated that he likes to “live in a culturally Christian country” because it is kind to women and tolerant of homosexuals, whereas Islam is fundamentally hostile to both. The tenets of political liberalism happily coincide for Dawkins with a basically Christian culture, though in reality, the specific form of tolerance Dawkins takes to be the Christian culture of Britain is a twisting of the Christian virtues of kindness and love. What is particularly striking is how the rise of militant Islam, combined with the rapidly increasing numbers of Muslims throughout the UK (and all of Europe for that matter), is what prompted Dawkins’ reflections on Christian culture.
Islam is a militantly intolerant religion, but it is also a confident one. Islamic teaching—as wrong as it is—provides its adherents with an understanding of why they exist and how they should live in the world. It gives them meaning and purpose. Political liberalism is impotent in the face of Islam because political liberalism has no positive vision for life. It puts forth certain rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and so forth. Yet, it is unable to tell you why you should even want to live, what you should desire to be free to do, or how you can find happiness. Some of those rights, properly understood, are good and important as far as they go. No one may kill or imprison anyone else without cause; in general, it is best to let people live their own lives without massive interference from others, and so on. Islam, however, has a positive vision for all of life, which is why it is bulldozing every existentially empty competitor in its path.
Dawkins, I’m sure without realizing it, is the heir to many more benefits of Britain’s Christian past than he realizes. In the interview, he primarily focused on the outward, mostly aesthetic, trappings of Christianity, as well as his conflation of Christianity and progressive social mores. But consider just a few of the much more foundational things citizens of nations formerly shaped by Christianity enjoy, though often take for granted. The English, as also their American cousins, are subject to a long history of defending the concept of impartial justice.
Read More
Related Posts:

So we evangelicals cannot criticise the Evangelicals for Harris campaign while overlooking Trump’s evil. Voting for the lesser evil in Trump can be a righteous act, but it’s unrighteous to ignore the evil, even if it’s lesser than Kamala Harris’ greater evil. Donald Trump’s position on abortion is deplorable and Kamala Harris’ position is demonic. Despite his great track record on abortion when he was president, Trump isn’t campaigning against abortion. Kamala Harris, however, is campaigning for abortion.

The evangelicals for Harris campaign is a contradiction in terms. “Evangelicals for Harris” is as absurd as Jews for Pharaoh, Christians for Emperor Nero, or evangelicals for Satan.
There is no such thing as “Evangelicals for Harris.” If you’re voting for Kamala Harris, you are not an evangelical. Everyone knows this, including Evangelicals for Harris.
Earlier this week Evangelicals for Harris held a Zoom meeting hosted by Ekemini Uwan, an anti-white and pro-abortion “public theologian” who has said:
“Lets be honest, evangelical really means white Christians. The term has always been problematic because it is narrow in that sense.”
“I don’t classify as an evangelical because it’s tightly bound to whiteness.”
“When I see ‘evangelical’ I know they are not talking about me or my kinsmen.”
“I’ve never considered myself an evangelical.”
So why would a person who doesn’t consider herself an evangelical host a meeting for a campaign called Evangelicals for Harris? 
As Megan Basham says in her bestselling book, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda, leftists know the best way to lure evangelical voters away from conservatism is to fund evangelical leaders who will frame leftist policies as Biblical precepts.
In the book, Basham writes:
“[in 2012, a left-wing cause named Atlantic Philanthropies] issued a report on its failing efforts to break down opposition to gay marriage in Ireland…the report highlighted the resistance of Ireland’s devout Catholics and Protestants. ‘Organized religion is at the heart of the LGBTI oppression and needs to be deconstructed,’ the authors wrote. But they quickly identified the roadblock they would face in achieving the aim: ‘How can one deconstruct an institution that provides hope and comfort to millions of desperate people?’ Rather than go on opposing churches, the gay lobby would need to co-opt them. “An engagement needs to come from groups within the churches,” the report advised. “LGBTI organizations need to appropriate Christian values for a progressive rights agenda.”
This is why Evangelicals for Harris exists. This is why they are encouraging people who hate evangelicalism to pose as evangelicals.
Read More
Related Posts: