Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.

In a recent article (https://www.semperref.org/articles/why-i-am-voting-against-overture-15), Pastor Jim Weidenaar gave his reasons for voting against Overture 15 on the grounds that it “is too general and undefined to offer constructive guidance here. Beyond this, the addition of Overture 15’s language [“Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”] to the Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order (BCO) would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds, by creating an atmosphere which stifles rather than guides biblical repentance and fellowship among those who experience this category of sinful temptation, and by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.”
He begins by asking four questions about another overture, specifically, Overture 29, since it deals with the same topic of qualifications for church office. He asks, “What does Overture 15 add to Overture 29 that makes it a necessary addition to the BCO?” His four questions, which are actually objections, are:

Is it the literal use of the term homosexual in his description of himself? 
Is it the fact that the candidate tells anyone about this aspect of his sin/temptation/sanctification experience? 
Is it to single out this sin (or, that someone has this sort of temptation experience as opposed to any other)?
Is it about ontology?

In his first objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that Overture 29 (O29) covers what is required in the character of an elder. According to him, all Overture 15 (O15) adds is the word homosexual and a few other phrases. But his objection rests upon a like-minded culture shared by the church and the culture at large. That may have been generally true 40 years ago. But over all these years, there has been a shift in how homosexuality is defined and accepted. Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.
In his second objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that O15 is designed to silence individuals from confessing their specific sins. He claims that Paul’s example of calling himself the chief sinner is scriptural proof that we must do the same. Thus, with this understanding, not only is O15 wrong but it is heretical. My sense is that  there is some exegetical sleight of hand in using this argument. Paul’s intent is not to mention his specific sins but to express his sinful nature, much like how expressed it here: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (I Tim. 1:15, NASB).
One cannot prove the specific from the general. I did find Pastor Weidenaar’s summary conclusion concerning this point troubling. He states, “And by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.” Does this mean that those who support O15 are heretics? Is this a veiled charge that serves as a warning?
In the third objection, he asks whether O15 intent is singling out one sin as opposed to other sins. The simple answer is, Yes, it is. I take great comfort in the scriptural wisdom of the Westminster Divines. Consider these two questions from the Larger Catechism:
Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?A. Sins receive their aggravations, (Reasons 1, 2, and 4 omitted here.)…3. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
Homosexuality is an offense against the light of nature. It violates the creation ordinance concerning marriage, family, and filling the earth. It violates the seventh commandment (see Westminster Larger Catechism, question 139).
So, yes, Pastor Weidenaar, it is good and proper for the church to single out this sin, regardless of how it is accepted and defined by secular culture.
Pastor Weidenarr reserves the bulk of his article in question four. He states, “We are all familiar with the rhetoric of our culture which closely ties the personal experience of gender and sexuality to the essence of personhood.” The statement “I am,” can be a mediocre statement denoting a fact, such as “I am tired.” That has no bearing on who I am as a person. But it can be a powerful statement that communicates inner truths.
Jesus used the phrase to describe himself and to communicate deep truths about his person and work.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst” (John 6:35).
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (John 8:12).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).
So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7).
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11).
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser” (John 15:1).

When I say I am an America, I’m not just saying that I was born in a certain country in North America. I’m saying that I am proud to live in this country and that I love life, liberty, and justice for all. When I say that I’m Italian, I am not saying that I was born and raised in Italy. I understand that I am proud of my ancestry; that my grandfather, as a young teen, made his way to the U.S. and made a life for his family.
Given all the lack of clarity on ethical issues in our society, a person who says, “I am gay’” or “I am a gay-Christian,” is communicating that he has chosen a certain way of life. Like Lot’s wife, who looked back to Sodom, he’s communicating where his true heart and allegiance are. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.
In his summary Pastor Weidenarr states that O15 “would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds.” This is a pragmatic rationale and must be rejected. Jesus Christ is the head of his Church and he will see to its care. I am indebted to Pastor Weidenaar for this article in that it highlighted for me how the church is losing its sense of biblical grounding. And it shows me how important it is for me as an elder to instruct the members of the church in the foundational truths of Scripture. If we fail to provide and act on this ethical grounding we will lose the next generation.
O15 is needed at this point in the history of the Church to provide clarity on biblical sexual ethics.
Al Taglieri is a Ruling Elder in the Providence Presbyterian Church (PCA) in York, Penn.
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Friday, June 14, 2024
You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.

Dipping the bread into the wine as a method of distributing and receiving the elements of the Lord’s supper is a matter that has recently come into discussion among some churches. This procedure, commonly called “intinction,” has significance in the life of the church because it directly affects the manner in which this sacrament, instituted by Christ, should be properly celebrated.
People who favor allowing intinction as one method for the distribution and reception of the elements of the Lord’s supper indicate that they see certain advantages in this procedure, and find nothing in Scripture that would disallow it. Among other considerations, they note the following:
(1) It is perhaps the most convenient way to distribute the elements.
(2) It emphasizes the central fact of the one celebration supper involving two elements.
(3) It falls naturally into the category of various other aspects of the celebration of the Lord’s supper in which a breadth of procedures is acknowledged as appropriate. These various aspects include: the type of bread that is used, whether of a single loaf or multiple pieces; the use of wine or unfermented grape juice, or an option of both; whether the elements are distributed among a seated congregation or the congregation comes forward to receive the elements; whether the people take the elements individually or simultaneously. These various aspects of celebrating the Lord’s supper are all generally regarded as acceptable, and left up to the various congregations. In a similar way, it is proposed that dipping the bread in the wine and taking both elements together in the sop falls into this same category of aspects in the celebration of the supper that may be experienced in equally legitimate but differing ways. Objecting to the procedure of intinction would seem to be making a large issue out of a small matter.
However, certain aspects of the biblical witness must be given full consideration. It is, after all, Scripture that must provide the defining word in all issues before the Lord’s church, whether it be matters clearly addressed or matters requiring more careful consideration. In this regard, several aspects of the biblical testimony deserve the church’s attention.
First, the nature of the sacraments.
In contrast with the verbalization of the truth in the preaching of the Word, the sacrament communicates redemptive truth by the use of symbolic elements and actions. In the case of baptism, the minister applies the one element of water by the one action of sprinkling, pouring or immersing. The one element and the one action provide the method by which a person enters the covenant community, and symbolize the descent of the Spirit on the person as well as the washing away of sins.
In the case of the Lord’s supper, the minister makes two statements regarding the two elements. Regarding symbolic action, the minister takes the bread, breaks the bread, distributes the bread, and the people eat the bread. For the cup, the minister takes the cup, gives the cup and the people drink the cup. But does the congregation receive the bread and the cup with two actions or with one action?
The symbolic actions of the Lord’s supper are particularly significant due to the historic setting of its original institution. The time is specified as “the night in which he was betrayed,” the night before his death (1 Cor. 11:23). These words and actions represent what may be called Jesus’ “last will and testament.” More precisely, they are the words and actions that institute the “new covenant.” More sacred in biblical culture than a “last will and testament” are the words instituting a “covenant.” In his letter to the Galatians, Paul underscores the sacredness of the wording of a covenant: “Even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified” (Gal. 3:15 ESV). The words and actions of Jesus as recorded by the gospels and Paul institute the new covenant, the consummating covenant. If no one dares to modify a single word or phrase of a normal person’s last will and testament, or a human covenant, how much less is it appropriate for a person to modify a divine covenant, or what may be regarded as virtually the last will and testament of our Lord? These are his consummating covenantal words. They must be held in sacred honor. Neither the words nor the actions clearly indicated should be modified in any way. The symbolic significance of the actions as well as the words of Jesus in the institution of the Lord’s supper must be reverently preserved and observed.
Second, the clear establishment of two distinctive elements and two distinctive actions.
The sacrament of baptism clearly has one element and one action: water and the application of the water. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper just as clearly has two elements and two actions: bread broken and eaten; the cup of wine presented and drunk. Two distinct elements and two distinct actions. Underscoring the distinction between the two actions is the clear indicator of a pause that occurred between the partaking of the two different elements. Both Luke’s gospel and Paul’s letter state that they ate the bread and then “after supper” they took the cup (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Unless it be proposed that Luke and Paul improperly added the notation about “after supper” between the taking of the two elements, it is clear that drinking the wine is separated from eating the bread.
Even if no reason at all could be found for the separation in time between eating the bread and drinking the wine, it would be altogether appropriate to follow the clear pattern established by the Lord. He is as it were on his death-bed. These are his precise instructions. These instructions and these procedures should be followed.
Yet good reason for a separation between eating the bread and drinking the wine resides inherently in the two separate elements and the differing manner in which they are received. Consider first the distinctive symbolism inherent in the two physical elements of the sacrament, and the different manner in which these two distinct elements are received. Secondly, remember the redemptive-historical context of the institution of the Lord’s supper. Thirdly, note particularly the symbolism of the cup. Fourthly, consider the procedure followed in the eating and drinking.
1. The distinctive symbolism of the two elements, and the differing manner in which they are received.
The bread. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus. The bread is broken as Jesus’ body was broken. It was broken on the cross. From the crown of his head to the sole of his feet, his body was broken. From the right hand to the left outstretched, his flesh was pierced and his bones were broken by the nails. The spear of the centurion pierced his side. Jesus’ entire body was broken for you.
What do you do with the bread? You smell the bread. You hold the bread. You place the bread in your mouth. You crush the bread with your teeth. You share the guilt for the breaking of his body. By God’s grace it was broken for you. You swallow the bread, personally accepting his body as broken for you. That is the symbolic significance of the breaking and the eating of the bread.
The cup of wine. The cup of wine symbolizes the life-blood of Jesus poured out in sacrifice for you. By these two separate elements of the Lord’s supper, Jesus vividly displays the total character of his sacrifice for sinners. His body broken, his life-blood poured out.
Wine has different physical characteristics than bread. It has the semblance of blood. Wine smells differently than bread. It has a pungent odor. Wine creates different sensations when taken into the mouth. Bread does not sting when eaten. But wine burns as it is being swallowed. As you take the wine and experience the physical sensations it causes, you are vividly reminded that Jesus poured out his life-blood as a sacrifice for you. The burning sensation of the wine can hardly compare with the pain Jesus’ flesh experienced when the thorns pierced his head and the nails pierced his hands and feet. But at least the stinging of the wine serves as a physical reminder that he was wounded for your transgressions, bruised for your iniquities.
His body broken—the bread. His blood poured out—the wine. Take and eat. Drink, all of you, of it. Two symbolic elements, two symbolic actions of receiving.
But the bread made soggy with the wine. You do not experience the crushing of the bread. You do not experience the stinging of the wine. You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.
It has been suggested that the words of institution spoken by the minister adequately communicate the difference of the bread in distinction from the wine. But to substitute the words of institution for the symbolic actions is to lose the point of a sacrament. By having the recipient ingest the two elements physically and separately, the truth pronounced by the differing words finds full reinforcement through the symbolism of the two separated actions.
2. The biblical-theological significance of the two elements and the two actions.
A further consideration emphasizes the significance of the two elements and the two actions, which is the place in redemptive history of the institution of the Lord’s supper. As redemptive history progresses, each subsequent covenant incorporates by substance and symbol God’s previous covenants. The covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Mosaic covenant incorporates the basic elements of the covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Abrahamic covenant, though differing in its mode. Abraham saw in his vision a smoking pot and a flaming torch passing between the shattered pieces of the divided animals. In this way God “cut a covenant” with Abraham (Gen. 15:18). God pledged to absorb into himself the curses of the covenant by symbolically “passing between the pieces.” This symbolic action found its fulfillment in the crucifixion of Christ. Moses at Sinai could hardly have required over three million people to “pass between the pieces” in a covenant-making ceremony.
Read More
Related Posts:

It’s likely the case that John’s original audience saw no contradiction between John’s Last Supper chronology and the chronology of the other Gospels because they understood the way terms were used interchangeably in their day. Unfortunately, for modern readers who are unaware of the context, John’s language can sometimes be misunderstood to represent a different chronology than the Synoptics. 

Close readers of the Gospels understand that John’s timeline of the Last Supper seems to differ from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The Synoptics indicate that the disciples prepared the Passover meal “on the first day of Unleavened Bread,” or Thursday night (Mark 14:12; see also Matt. 26:17; Luke 22:7). Judas went out to betray Him that evening, and Jesus was arrested in the night. He was then crucified on Friday. He was in the grave until Sunday morning, on which day He was raised from the dead.
Yet John says this after the Last Supper had occurred, when the Jews went to Pilate’s headquarters: “They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover” (John 18:28). He then later says, after Jesus was crucified, that “it was the day of Preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14). This means that Jesus’ arrest and trial would have happened before Passover, unlike in the Synoptics, where Jesus’ arrest and trial happened after Passover.
Is this a contradiction? It seems that way on first reading. Various solutions have been offered to resolve this seeming contradiction. Some have argued that Jesus celebrated the Passover according to a different calendar in use at this time, such as according to a special Pharisaic calendar. Yet there is little evidence in the Gospels or historical records to validate such a view. Others have argued that Jesus wasn’t celebrating a Passover meal, but rather a different but related festival meal. The trouble with this argument is that one is left with the opposite problem—John’s chronology makes sense, but the Synoptics’ chronology doesn’t. The plain meaning of the synoptic Gospels indicates that Jesus was celebrating the Passover meal.
There is a final view that seems most biblically justified and understandable to me, but it requires some explanation. The first thing to understand is that Passover was simply a meal that began on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which went for several days. Western Christians don’t often celebrate multiday holidays, but many in other cultures do. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week-long feast. It was one of several national celebrations for the Jews. It reminded them of their liberation from Egypt and God’s preservation of His people in the wilderness years. Passover kicked it all off, just like the original Passover kicked off Israel’s liberation from Egypt and led to the wilderness years and the promised land.
Read More
Related Posts: