Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) pastors Dominic Aquila and Fred Greco sat down in early September 2021 to discuss overtures 23 & 37 which are related to the Revoice/SSA officer controversies. They explained the background to them, answered questions posed about them, and clarified why these amendments should be passed.
Watch the video here.

The Intent of the BCO Amendments

BCO 16-4 Deals with Standards for Ordination for Church Officers.
BCO 21-4 and 24-1 Deal with Standards for Examinations For Church Officers.
There amendments do not deal with communicant members, their views and their membership in the church.
The General Assembly approved the wording on Overture 23 (which is the wording for BCO 16-4) by a vote of 77%. The vote for Overture 37 (the wording for BCO 21-4 and 24-1) was approved by a vote of 62%.
These BCO amendments add specific wording because of current issues in the culture that require clearer definitions of qualities like “above approach,” “a good reputation,” and “respected.” It is the nature of the development of creeds, confessions and internal church orders, that clarifying wordings may be added to affirmations in light of current issues.

The Proposed Amendments to the PCA’s Book of Church Order as approved by the PCA General Assembly

BCO 16-4. Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either (1) by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or (2) by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or (3) by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.
BCO 21-4 e. In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The candidate must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on 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. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of the pastoral office, Presbyteries are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations of these matters and to give prayerful support to candidates.
BCO 24-1. In the examination of each nominee’s personal character, the Session shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. 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. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of church office, Sessions are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations into these matters and to give prayerful support to nominees.

Reasons to Vote in Favor of Approving These Amendments
The focus is on church officers with an emphasis on their developing a Christlike character. The amendments recognize that it is possible for a man’s character to undermine or contradict the focus on Christlikeness in a number of ways, which may become hinderances to being qualified as a church officer, EITHER

By denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction); or
By denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification; or
By failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions

Why Are These Statements Important?
“By denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction).”

The Westminster Standards teach the all-encompassing reality of the Fall and its effects on all mankind (WCF 6). Sin affects our total being such that we are dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all parts and faculties of soul and body and inclined to all evil.
WCF 6.5 states, “This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.” No professing believer is perfect in this life and because it is possible for remaining sin to prevail in a professing believer’s life, church courts should examine men for church office carefully in life as well as in doctrine.

“By denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification.”

WCF 13.2 states, “This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; where arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.”
Since professing believers are not perfect, the Scripture teaches and the Standards affirm, that their growth in grace is progressive. Those being considered for church office should demonstrate a maturity of life by a regular pattern of growth in Christlikeness. Even the most mature church officer continues to progress regularly in his sanctification and maturity in his life and faith.

“By failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.”

WCF 13.3 states, “In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
Professing believers are incapable by their own strength to overcome the effects of remaining sin; they must depend on the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit to put to death the works of the flesh and by the Spirit put on the character of Christ. Church courts are to examine candidates for church office to inquire into how they put off the old and put on the new by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
Professing believers can say, “I was once a sinner struggling with—-, but Christ washed me. Some corruption remains, but the Spirit enables me to put it off the old and to put on its Christlike opposite.” If this is our true understanding for all professing believers, it is just as true for church officers.

The Amendments Will Guide Church Courts
These amendments are beneficial to guide church courts in their duty to examine church officers with respect to their Christian character. These amendments provide the following:

Amplify the Scriptural requirements for church office found in many passages, such as in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.
Encourage courts to be diligent in examining both theological views as well as character. “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (I Tim 4:16). “Keep watch over yourselves and of all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28).
Encourage courts to ask appropriate questions on a variety of areas: such as, marital issues, child abuse, racism, sexual purity, use of time, friendships, and financial management.
Use the language of “reputation,” which is in line with the Pauline language, and touches on qualifications such as to be “respected” (1 Tim 3:2), “well thought of by outsiders” (1 Tim 3:7), and “above reproach” (Titus 1:7).
Apply our biblical understanding of our theology and practice to church officers.
Define general moral thinking and behavior specifically to reflect and apply current realities facing the church.
Understand and apply the teachings of the Westminster Standards, especially as delineated in Larger Catechism questions 138 (What are the duties required in the seventh commandments?) and 139 (What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?).

While the debate on questions about biblical sexual ethics gave rise to these amendments, the intent and content of the amendments cover the whole spectrum of character qualities for church officers.
As one outside observer noted: Seen in the context of the 2,000-year history of the church, the PCA’s deliberations were hardly revolutionary. But in 2021 cultural revolutionary America, the language commissioners proposed be added to the PCA’s Book of Church Order ring with Christian bravery before a hostile world:
Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same-sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires . . . or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office. 
Watch the video here.

In this life we learn more by getting things wrong than by getting things right. It is one of the great routes to wisdom: Learn by your mistakes. A child has to have some independence in order to learn to take responsibility. They need to be let off the leash so that they will understand the need for self-discipline. Otherwise you are deceiving yourself. So back off occasionally and see what he/she does.

There is nothing easy about parenting, and nothing easy about the responsibility of training our children in obedience through discipline. Because discipline is unpopular and unpleasant, parents often find themselves looking for substitutes. In her book Parenting Against the Tide, Ann Benton lists five poor substitutes for disciplining our children—five poor substitutes that fail to address the heart.
Excuse Them
This is the voice of therapy culture. Sometimes we make excuses for our child’s misbehavior. We say, “he’s tired, she’s had a hard day, he’s disappointed, she’s traumatised, he’s got low self-esteem …” Now all of these things may be true. But that is not the point. The point is this: Are we going to allow our children to take responsibility for their own behavior/misbehavior or not? Or is it always going to be the fault of someone else or of the circumstances? I am not saying we cannot be understanding or sympathetic. But if we are going to praise our children when they do well, surely it is logical to chastise them when they do badly. They make choices, which are moral choices, all day long. If we commend them for the good we cannot merely excuse them for the bad. That is very poor training because it teaches them to blame-shift.
Ignore Them
This is the voice of liberalism, which would be inclined to allow the children as far as possible to do as they like. When called upon to intervene, liberalism refuses to recognise an absolute moral worldview, whereby some things are definitely wrong and some things are definitely right. This is a failure in discipline because we need to instruct our children’s sense of right and wrong and that this is quite outside of how they fell about it. It might feel great to pull someone’s hair but it is wrong. Children have a moral sense, they have a conscience and this conscience is your friend when you discipline. Bring in right and wrong as absolutes. And be clear that the fundamental right course of action for a child is obedience to you.
Organise Them
[This is] the voice of strategic management. Some parents work really hard to avoid the occasion for misbehavior by organizing their children’s life and surroundings.
Read More

Paul repeatedly refers to sound doctrine in his Pastoral Epistles. He knows that sound, or healthy, doctrine does not give life; the Spirit of God. But anyone born the Spirit needs the know and grow in life-giving doctrines of God. 

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching [doctrine].Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.—1 Timothy 4:16
Doctrine and life. Life and doctrine.
In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he calls his pastoral protegé to embrace both and not let go of the other. And for anyone who cares about life or doctrine, we must also care about the other also. For doctrine without life is dead and life without sound doctrine is leading to death.
In truth, when doing theology if it does not lead someone to the giver of life, it is dead theology. But simultaneously, life that downplays doctrine is equally deadly. This is why Paul repeatedly refers to sound doctrine in his Pastoral Epistles. He knows that sound, or healthy, doctrine does not give life; the Spirit of God. But anyone born [of] the Spirit needs [to] know and grow in life-giving doctrines of God. This is why he says that by paying attention to doctrine, ‘you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
Simultaneously, because he knows that knowledge by itself can puff up (1 Cor. 8:1), and that not all studies in the Law are lawful (1 Tim. 1:3–11), he calls for Timothy to guard his life and his doctrine. Too many are the knowledgable theologians who did not guard their lives. And too many are the false professors who have general sense of theology but no life. Thus, we must always pursue doctrine for the sake of knowing the life-giving God. To expound this idea further, let me turn to two theologians who knew both doctrine and life.
William Ames (1576–1633) on Theology as Living to God
The first is William Ames (1576–1633). And in his Marrow of Theology, he defines theology as the privilege and necessity of finding life in God. As the Puritans always remind us, theology is never an end in itself; it is always a means of communing with the triune God. Ames definition of theology reflects this approach. And in thirteen points, he helps us to see how and why living before God (Coram Deo) is the essence, or marrow, of theology.

Theology is the doctrine or teaching [doctrina] of living to God. John 6:68, The words of eternal life; Acts 5:20, The words of this life; Rom. 6:11, Consider yourselves alive to God.
It is called doctrine, not to separate it from understanding, wisdom, art, or prudence—for these go with every exact knowledge, discipline, and most of all with theology—but to mark it as a discipline which derives not from nature and human inquiry like others, but from divine revelation and appointment. Isa. 51:4, Doctrine shall go forth from me; Matt. 21:25, From heaven . . . Why then did you not believe him?; John 9:29, We know that God has spoken to Moses; Gal. 1:11-12, The gospel . . . is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation; John 6:45.
The principles of other arts, since they are inborn in us, can be developed through sense perception, observation, experience, and induction, and so brought to perfection. But the basic principles of theology, though they may be advanced by study and industry, are not in us by nature. Matt. 16:17, Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you.
Every art has its rules to which the work of the person practicing it corresponds. Since living is the noblest work of all, there cannot be any more proper study than the art of living.
Since the highest kind of life for a human being is that which approaches most closely the living and life-giving God, the nature of theological life is living to God.
Men live to God when they live in accord with the will of God, to the glory of God, and with God working in them. 1 Peter 4:2, 6, That he may live . . . by the will of God . . . according to God; Gal. 2:19-20, That I may live to God Christ who lives in me; 2 Cor. 4:10, That the life of Jesus may be manifest in our bodies; Phil. 1:20, Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death.
This life in essence remains one and the same from its beginning to eternity. John 3:36 and 5:24, He who believes in the Son has eter. nal life; 1 John 3:15, Eternal life abiding in him.
Although it is within the compass of this life to live both happily and well living well (eusōia, is more excellent than living happily (eudaimonia). What chiefly and finally ought to be striven for is not happiness which has to do with our own pleasure, but goodness which looks to God’s glory. For this reason, theology is better defined as that good life whereby we live to God than as that happy life whereby we live to ourselves. The apostle therefore called it by synecdoche, the teaching which accords with godliness, 1 Tim. 6:3.

Read More