In light of our current crossroads as a denomination, I pray that we will be found faithful to uphold the faith once delivered, to realize the shoulders of the many faithful men who have gone before us and upon which we stand, and to not shy away from where the battle is most fierce but instead to charge forward by the power of the Spirit knowing that he who has called us is faithful.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is at a crossroads. The issues related to human sexuality have become a focal point for the past five years. And although great strides have been made to carefully explore these issues, there is still work to be done. We have communicated our appreciation for the Nashville Statement as biblically faithful at our 47th General Assembly. We then overwhelmingly approved the Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality at our 48th General Assembly. Our 49th General Assembly approved a proposed amendment that sought to amend our governing document (Book of Church Order) to better reflect our stated convictions on these matters as they relate to the general classification of officers. This proposed amendment failed to meet the threshold of approval among the presbyteries, and so we now have several requests to the General Assembly (overtures) to amend our Book of Church Order (BCO) to clarify even further our conviction and resolve on issues related to human sexuality. This year’s Overture 9 from Arizona Presbytery is just one of several that have been submitted. It proposes to add the following language to the BCO:
7-4.  Men who deviate – whether by declared conviction, self-description, lifestyle decisions, or overt practice – from God’s creational intention for human sexuality are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
It is my intention here to give helpful insight into the principle and intention of this overture so that our commissioners might see best what this overture brings to the table. I crafted this overture in conjunction with my Session, and it was discussed among several other Teaching Elders in our presbytery before being brought to the floor of presbytery for a vote.
One challenge we’ve noticed with these types of overtures is related to the proper placement of the amendment in the BCO. This seems to be one of the more contested issues among those convinced that an amendment on these matters is desirable and necessary. Where do you place such an amendment? My argument for chapter 7 would be simply that this chapter deals most fundamentally with the classes of officers (elder and deacon), including setting various general constraints upon these offices. This overture necessarily follows BCO 7-2, which states, “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only,” and, since the content is dealing with a further restriction upon these offices, it necessitates an additional paragraph, much like what BCO 7-3 accomplishes related to ecclesial titles. Therefore, chapter 7 seems the most helpful and natural place for this type of restriction related to officers to be stated.
Regardless of the placement, however, I believe this overture and the others submitted will give helpful and necessary fodder for our Overtures Committee to chew on, so that we might together craft governing language that will seek to do what is in accordance with our vows as elders, to “strive for the purity, peace, unity and edification of the Church” (BCO 24-6). So, in light of these things, let me walk through the language of this overture so we can best understand it as we prepare for the work of our 50th General Assembly.
“Men who deviate”
The key word of this overture is “deviate,” upon which the principle of the overture is set forth. Here is the principle: Define the standard to expose the deviation. We need language that bolsters our ability to see deviations, rather than language that names and even describes a limited number of deviations. When we do the latter, we open ourselves to either: A) frequent amendments to our BCO based upon aberrant cultural developments and/or B) the inability of our courts to properly adjudicate matters pertaining to future deviations that we cannot now name or define. This proposal is different than previous proposed amendments and additions to the BCO in that it seeks to develop a procedural rubric for determining deviations from the biblical standard as they relate to officers in the PCA.
The Particular Categories
The short list of descriptive phrases found within the em dashes in the language proposed is meant to provide categorical insight into the focus of this provision. In terms of the purposes of this overture, these cover a wide variety of potentials and will give our courts helpful language to assess one’s conformity or lack thereof to our confessional standards, which rest on the biblical witness. Let’s take these in turn to explore the contours of these descriptive phrases. You will notice that each phrase speaks to the willful way in which someone is operating and does not impugn or presume upon one’s motivations.
“declared conviction”
The first is “declared conviction” which speaks to the professed, stated, or articulated belief of someone regarding these issues. It is important to note that this first category does not necessitate the need for one to struggle with these sinful proclivities themselves but rather is based on the substance of one’s declared convictions on these matters. If an officer or candidate is an advocate for positions that deviate in one way or another from God’s intention for human sexuality (i.e., sexual union, sexual intimacy, sexual attraction), then this declared conviction would be grounds for a court to bring discipline against a current officer or prevent a candidate from becoming an officer. For instance, an elder declares that same-sex sexual desire is not sinful. This would qualify as a deviation. Consider another example: During the initial examination, a candidate for gospel ministry states that an aberrant sexual orientation may be within God’s creational intention for human sexuality. This would be a deviation. It is important to note that this would implicate one regardless of their own personal experience with said desires, temptations, proclivities, etc. because of their conviction to affirm, support, or defend these deviant positions.
“self-description”
This term is one that has been the focal point of our recent controversy and was the emphasis of Overture 15 from 2022. What is in view here is the significance of the preservation of one’s mind and one’s words as an officer of Christ’s Church. In speaking of the way in which one describes themselves, our own Ad Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality states:
To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term “Christian” is inconsistent with Biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). [1]
If we have stated this in the report related to Christians in general, then how much more so ought this to be the standard of our officers? The way in which an officer describes himself is important for the purpose of clarity and understanding among: 1) those he has been called to shepherd; 2) those under his care who may struggle with same-sex attraction; and 3) those under his care who know someone who struggles with these sinful proclivities. This is showing Christian love by not peddling the confusion of our culture but instead faithfully presenting ourselves in light of who we are in Christ.
This category is critical because of the need for our courts to determine if the way in which one describes themselves is out of accord with our biblical and confessional standards. Note that there are no “magic words” or shibboleth phrases that become landmines, but rather, a court is charged to superintend the overall way in which one is describing themselves to gain an understanding of whether or not they are deviating from God’s creational intention for human sexuality in their self-description.
“lifestyle decisions”
This phrase has attracted the most attention among those who have interacted with me directly regarding this overture. What is in view here are those decisions that are reflected in one’s life. Decisions that would expressly deviate from the divine intention for human sexuality (i.e., sexual union, sexual intimacy, sexual attraction). Such deviations would include, but certainly not be limited to: “spiritual friendship” (described as same-sex unions that are exclusive in nature, with the appearance of marriage, but are not engaged in sexual activity); transvestism (the presentation of oneself to seem like the opposite sex); transgenderism (a lifestyle in which one presents themselves out of accord with their biological sex, even through actions that may cause irreversible damage to one’s body); and queer culture (an adapted form of belonging that envisages one’s affiliations and community as made up by those who are transgressive in their sexual expression and lifestyle). It is worth mentioning at this point that some of these categories of “lifestyle decisions” are relatively new to our society and reflect in many ways the spirit of the age. It is not unreasonable to assume that these types of transgressions will only metastasize as the culture willingly moves away from any and all biblical moorings.
It is important that we understand that these lifestyle decisions are directly related to the way in which one is expressing their vision of human sexuality and would not include family decisions or marital decisions that fall well within the parameters of the Scriptures, such as adoption or remaining unmarried. These, in and of themselves, do not necessarily expose a deviation because they are not in violation of the biblical standard for human sexuality. In fact, in terms of adoption, we see that far from being a deviation, it is rather a marvelous parable of the gospel, as Paul states:
…you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:15b-17)
In terms of remaining unmarried, again, the Apostle Paul gives a vision of this for the Christian from his own life and encourages others to consider this way of serving the Lord. He states his reason for this clearly when he says:
I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:35)
The Apostle states that there is a God-glorifying way to remain unmarried that does not violate God’s creational intention for human sexuality (i.e., sexual union, sexual intimacy, sexual attraction) but rather upholds it, honors it, and puts forward a vision of Christian chastity. An unmarried man living a chaste life shows fidelity to God’s creational intention for human sexuality. This is not a deviation. This is true whether this has occurred in widowhood, until one is eventually married, or even if one remains unmarried for their entire life. A deviation would consist of a man who is unmarried pursuing sexual intimacy or sexual union, which God intended for one who is married. A deviation would also include a man who is unmarried entering into a vow of celibacy or if a man were to put off marriage in an inordinate manner.
Read More
Related Posts:

When someone is going through unspeakable suffering they often do not need your arguments. They will not benefit from your theological exercise of sense-making. They need your presence so they do not have to bear the burden alone. They need you to hope for them when their hope is lacking. And they need you to be able to stand under the weight of their pain and doubt when it feels like they can’t stand for themselves.

“Wait, what happened?” my eyes widened as the pastor shared details of the tragic death of a young man in our church. It was senseless, completely preventable, and tragic. His mom had been in the small group I was leading, so I felt like I should do something. But what could I, a 25 year-old seminary student with no kids, possibly say or do to comfort his grieving parents in the middle of an unspeakable tragedy? “Just show up,” an older minister encouraged. Obediently, I did though I didn’t completely understand why.
The scenario above hasn’t exactly repeated itself, but everyone is acquainted with senseless violence, tragedy, or unexpected illness/death. It’s completely natural for those suffering in such circumstances to ask questions like, “Where is God in this?” “If God is so good, then why…”, or “How could a loving God allow…” and countless other versions of the question. It’s also completely natural for committed Christians to feel like their role in these circumstances is to try to help the suffering understand God’s role in or plan through the tragedy. We say well-meaning things like, “God surely has a plan,” or “Trust God’s goodness” that often come across as salt in the wound rather than balm for an aching soul.
Without thinking, well-meaning Christians play the role of  Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite from the story of Job.
When Orthodoxy isn’t the Point
After a brief prologue (Job 1-2), much of the book of Job is structured around a series of speeches. Job makes a speech complaining about his unjust suffering to which one of his friends responds with a defense of God and an insistence that this is all because of Job’s sin, to which Job responds with a refutation, followed by another friend tagging in to pick up the argument, and around and around we go for almost 30 chapters. Then, a younger man named Elihu chimes in for 5 chapters worth of speeches in which he rebukes everyone but takes up the argument of Job’s friends.
We’ll come back to what happens next shortly and try to identify where this all goes so sideways, but for now I want to point out something that is often missed in conversations about Job. If we skipped the prologue which describes events occurring in Heaven and approached the book with only the knowledge of the human actors, we would likely agree with Job’s friends. While we may not go so far as to insist that Job’s suffering is because of his sin, the strategy of many North American evangelical Christians when someone is in the midst of suffering is to attempt to defend and exonerate God.
This is exactly what Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu do for more than half of the book of Job. Their arguments appear orthodox. Their reasoning makes sense and feels more objective than the emotional decrees that Job makes. If we removed the knowledge we gain from the first 2 and final 5 chapters, we might find ourselves nodding along with much of what they say and cringing a bit when Job speaks.
But we shouldn’t remove the knowledge we gain from the first 2 and final 5 chapters. Because what we learn there means everything to how we understand Job’s story.
He Said What, Now?
Imagine you’re Eliphaz. You’ve been going round and round with him for a while now and no one seems to be making progress. Job is entrenched in his position that he’s innocent and insisting on having an audience with God. You’re entrenched in your position that God doesn’t afflict righteous people unjustly. No one is making progress.
Finally, God shows up. It appears that Job is having a conversation with God (Job 38-41:6), but you’re unprepared for when God turns his attention to you.
What are you expecting? Are you scared out of your mind? Maybe you’re expecting a “Well done” from the Lord.
Instead, God says:
7I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. —Job 42:7-8
Read More
Related Posts:

Whether at the workplace or in the home, God gives men and women noble work to do. Without anything to do, we could learn to become busybodies and be unduly drawn into the affairs of others, perhaps even criminal in nature. May God help us to mind our own affairs, diligently do what He commands, and, if we suffer, suffer not for sin but for Him alone.

Three verses in the New Testament refer to a busybody—2 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Timothy 5:13, and 1 Peter 4:15. The following briefly explores the meaning of busybody in each verse.
2 Thessalonians 3:11
For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
“Busybodies” in this verse stems from periergazomai, a verb meaning “to be intrusively busy” (BDAG). Broken into parts, this verb literally means “to work around” (peri, “around”;  ergazomai, “to work”). One commentator puts it this way: “the scornful characterization is produced by the preposition peri, ‘around,’ prefixed to the second participle, ‘working around,’ giving it a bad sense, since that which encircles anything does not belong to the thing itself, but lies outside and beyond it, going beyond its proper limits.”1 In other words, a busybody is someone who busies himself with what does not belong to himself. He goes beyond the proper limits of his own matters to busy himself with the matters of others.
In the context of 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, Paul’s remedy for this person is simple—this person can either work quietly and earn his own living or not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10, 12). Diligent work leaves little time for minding the affairs of others. For everyone else, they should avoid this lazy busybody or admonish him to live as he ought (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 13–15).
1 Timothy 5:13
And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
“Busybodies” in this verse stems from periergos, a noun related to the verb periergazomai above.
Read More
Related Posts: