Written by Robert A. J. Gagnon |
Friday, August 26, 2022
Although Yarhouse refers obliquely to wise counsel from church leaders, he allows the offender to call the shots. Paul rather recommends temporary remedial discipline for the persistently impenitent in order to minimize the harm done both to the offender and to the church (vv. 4-5, 9-13). The church’s complicity in sexual delusion benefits no one, least of all the offender. How far should Christians following Yarhouse’s suggestions go?

In June, Christianity Today published an article by Mark Yarhouse, a professor of psychology at Regent University in Virginia, on “gender dysphoria.” Gender dysphoria is the APA’s current description of the condition whereby someone perceives one’s “gender” to be other than one’s birth or biological sex. The previous designation in the APA’s diagnostic manual (and in my view still preferable) is “gender identity disorder” (GID).
Yarhouse contends:
1. Church members should address a man who thinks he is a woman by her chosen female name and use feminine pronouns, and a woman who thinks she is a man by her chosen male name and use masculine pronouns.
2. The church should not “treat as synonymous management of gender dysphoria and faithfulness” to Christ. The church should allow those with transgender desires “to identify with aspects of the opposite sex, as a way to manage extreme discomfort.”
3. For the most part, the church should give up on the “culture war” battle on this and other issues. “The church is called to rise above [culture] wars and present a witness to redemption.”
Yarhouse refers to three different lenses for interpreting the issue: Integrity (Yarhouse cites me as a proponent; go here for an online discussion), Disability, and Diversity (full affirmation of transgenderism). Although Yarhouse states that he believes “there are strengths in all three lenses,” he clearly operates with a descending scale with Disability at the top and Diversity at the bottom: “Because I am a psychologist…, I see value in a disability lens.”
Yarhouse doesn’t dump the Integrity lens entirely. “Even as Christians affirm the disability lens, we should also let the integrity lens inform our pastoral care.” He rather sees the disability lens as embracing the Integrity lens but going beyond it and even correcting it, at least at two points. First, “the disability lens also makes room for supportive care and interventions that allow for cross-gender identification in a way the integrity lens does not” (it is this allowance that is the main problem in my view). Second, it “rejects the teaching that gender identity conflicts are the result of willful disobedience or sinful choice.”
This last claim is curious. I for one do not view the mere experience of gender dysphoria as necessarily resulting from active efforts to rebel against God. My approach is not far from Yarhouse on this score: “A person may have choices to make in response to the condition, and those choices have moral and ethical dimensions. But the person is not culpable for having the condition as such.” Where I would qualify Yarhouse is in noting a more complex interplay of nature, nurture, environment, and choices. Incremental choices made in response to impulses may strengthen the same impulses.
Another problem with his “Disability” view is that for the most part people don’t associate a disability with sinful conduct. When people think of disabilities they typically think of such things as physical impairments of mobility, hearing, or sight; intellectual disability or other learning impairments; or health impairments like asthma, epilepsy, or attention deficit disorder. Such non-moral disabilities can be accommodated in all sorts of ways without violating any divine standards.
Even depression and anxiety (cited as parallels to gender dysphoria by Yarhouse) are not as directly or severely related to the desire to sin as a desire to pursue a gender identity at odds with one’s biological sex.
Read More
Related Posts:

Love is speaking truth in order to prevent sin.  As Side B homosexuality ordination has been active now for several years, it is becoming normalized.  Unless we take drastic action quickly, it will become the accepted theological view for the next generation. 

Those who personally know me think that I’m one of the nicest guys in the world. Maybe it’s just that I am shy and backward, and they take that for being nice! To get the truth about me you will probably have to talk to my wife and my children. The dictionary defines the word nice in terms of being pleasant and agreeable. Nice people tend to avoid conflict and any direct confrontation. They move through the back entrance to get to where they are going.  Being nice is not always a bad thing.  To survive in the pastoral ministry today, you probably need to be nice.
As I was reading the proposed overtures to the 49th Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) General Assembly (GA) on the issue of homosexual officers, the first thought that came to my mind was the word ‘nice.’
After a few years, the definition of Side B homosexuality has finally become clearer.  It is now rather apparent that Side B is considered a state of being wherein there is basically no hope of change.  Orientation is fixed. Thus, in the minds of most conservative elders in the PCA, Side B homosexual officers are now unacceptable. Each one of the overtures seek to restrict Side B homosexuals from serving as officers in the PCA.  With the exception of one Overture 15, I would classify them all as being rather indirect and nice.
These overtures can basically be boiled down to four separate overtures.  1) Overture 12 from Hills and Plains Presbytery denigrates “juxtapose[d] identities,” but begins the Overture by using language that officers “are well served (italics mine) when they can be honest about their present fallen realities and their hope for sanctification.”  2) Overture 20 and Overture 23 from North Georgia Presbytery and Southeast Alabama Presbytery are almost identical to each other.  The proposed change would disqualify “those who identify or describe themselves according to their specific sins.”  They also speak about those men who need to “demonstrate maturity (italics mine) of faith and growing conformity to Jesus Christ.”  3) Overture 29 from Pittsburgh Presbytery does call for a change to the BCO that would disqualify men who “deny the sinfulness of fallen desires, or who deny the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or who fail to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.”  However, they go on to say in Overture 31 that “the officers of the church must exercise great care (italics mine) to not normalize those sins in the eyes of the congregation.”  Here, they are being really nice.
4) Overture 15 is not considered to be so nice.  It plainly seeks to add to BCO 7-4 the following words. “Men who identify as homosexual, even those who identify as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy in that self-identification, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”  It’s very candid and to the point.  This proposed change is not considered nice because it is deemed by some as being too direct by using the word “homosexual.”  I have been told that homosexuals should not alone be targeted because there are many other sinful conditions that need to be addressed.  They tell me that it’s unfair to corner homosexuals.
Overture 15 is a duplicate of a one sent by Westminster Presbytery to the 48th General Assembly.  It disappeared in the parliamentary process last year. I suspect it will do the same again this year.
I believe the time for being nice is over.  We are in an emergency, and in crisis periods, it is time to be direct and to the point. Consider the following:

Love is speaking truth in order to prevent sin. As Side B homosexuality ordination has been active now for several years, it is becoming normalized.  Unless we take drastic action quickly, it will become the accepted theological view for the next generation.
Being loving and direct is what most people in the pews are expecting out of their leaders. Rather than dissecting words that are Jeopardy clues or insinuations, why not just be direct and get to the point.
In addition, it should be noted that Overture 15 is not dealing with church members, but only with church officers who must be above reproach in their public recognition as clergymen.
Conservatives in the PCA don’t want to be viewed as being political. Politics is a dirty word in their circles. There is no such group working behind closed doors to move the Church in their direction.  This disassociation with politics may be considered a kind of badge of honor.  Their attitude is that ‘if we have the numbers, we will win.  If we don’t, it’s God’s providence and we are called to acknowledge God’s providence.’
Some say that the BCO is not the place to speak to this issue. I would tend to agree, but we live in extraordinary times and in such times, we must do extraordinary things. Changing the Westminster Confession of Faith is nearly impossible and would be almost sacrilegious to most Presbyterians.  It appears to me that changing the BCO is our only option.
Conservatives have lost their case in the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). The Ad-Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality did not help their cause at all.  The two overtures this year asking the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction will just be sent to the SJC.
Some say that such bold language as used in Overture 15 will not be well-received in the presbyteries. The PCA as a whole seems to be saturated with the characteristic of niceness.  They say that it is better to be cautious and come through the backdoor – and have something – rather than being direct about it and have nothing.  This may be true.
Sometimes, it’s good to hit hard and fast. Rather than being nice over time, it is best to be loving and direct in the present.  It’s better to remove the imminent danger today than to wait and let and let it fester into something ugly later. A controlled explosion that detonates a ticking time-bomb is better than a delayed explosion by the bomb itself that will do much more damage.

I suspect some version of what I call the four nice overtures will be adopted this year by the General Assembly.  Ruling elders will be out in force again at the Assembly.  A new proposed change to the BCO will go back to the presbyteries for another vote.  This time it may get the needed vote by presbyteries.  It may pass the final test next year at the 50th General Assembly.  Conservatives will consider this a victory.  However, in my opinion these overtures are so nice that they fall short of the wisdom of being transparent and direct. Those who are homosexual officers will tweak their language to pass the new standards. The new BCO words (and new language created by homosexual officers) will be debated and debated. More SJC cases may follow.
In conclusion, maybe being nice and indirect is better than just saying plainly that homosexuals are not eligible to hold office in the PCA.  In God’s providence, we shall see.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

Margherita couldn’t have imagined that, 447 years after her death, her letters would be discovered and studied. And she couldn’t have imagined that, about 150 years after that, readers could sympathize with her challenges and draw from her wisdom.

Church history books are beginning to devote more space to women. Treatments of Medieval Christian women, however, is usually limited to a few queens and nuns – those who could express themselves at a time when most women’s voices were dismissed.
Recently, scholars have turned their attention to the correspondence, discovered in 1870 behind a staircase, of an Italian merchant and his wife – a collection comprising over 150,000 letters and 500 account books.
To historians, this is a rich documentation of how both trade and daily lives were conducted in fourteenth-century Italy. The wife’s letters in particular (over 250) afford the unique opportunity to hear the voice of an ordinary Medieval businesswoman and wife. To Christians, they represent an interesting account on how she met her daily challenges with faith.
Becoming a Merchant’s Wife
Margherita was born in 1360 to the noble Bandini family, who had moved from Florence to Avignon, France, following political exile (both Margherita’s father and her mother’s family had been accused of plotting against the republic). By that time, the papacy had also moved to Avignon, bringing further prosperity to the city.
In 1376, at age 16, Margherita was given in marriage to Francesco Datini, a wealthy merchant from Prato, Italy, who was 25 year her senior. Taking advantage of the papal move, Francesco was thriving in the new papal seat by selling luxury goods and art to cardinals and other clerics who lived there.
The age difference between Margherita and Francesco was not uncommon. In reality, Francesco had been so absorbed by his business that he would have gladly avoided marriage altogether. He had lovers, and had even fathered a son in 1374.
But it was his Prato neighbor Niccolozzo Binducchi, a father figure after Francesco’s parents died of the plague, who insisted that he should marry. A marriage, Niccolozzo expected, would produce legitimate children who could take over Francesco’s business and benefit from his work. As happy as Niccolozzo and his wife Piera had been about the birth of Francesco’s son, “having a legitimate son will bring you more honor before God and the world,”[1] Niccolozzo reminded him. Sadly, Margherita proved to be unable to conceive – a source of great sorrow for the couple.
In 1383, Francesco and Margherita moved back to Prato, where he traded in clothes, weapons, iron and salt, extending his business to other Italian and even Spanish cities and dealing in international commerce. In later years, he dabbled in the banking and insurance business. In reality, charging interest was still forbidden by canon law, but Francesco eased his conscience by saying he would leave his money to the poor when he died.
Francesco’s work caused him to travel for long periods of time, but he stayed in touch with his wife to receive news from home and reports about his business. He also sent her seemingly incessant instructions and reminders, to the point of becoming annoying.
From 1384 till his death in 1410, they corresponded about every two or three days. At first, Margherita, who had only learned to read (mostly her prayer books, typically written with the Gothic alphabet) had to dictate her letters. In her late thirties, she surprised Francesco by learning to read and write in the current “commercial” alphabet. This new ability allowed her to write whenever needed (without having to look for a scribe) and to be more honest in her letters.
Daily Challenges
As most women at that time, Margherita suffered from her husband’s repeated absences, which left her alone with her servants. Apparently, after marriage Francesco continued to be as work-driven as he had always been, so much that Niccolozzo had to exhort him, “You are rich enough, thanks be to God. Don’t want it all, don’t want it all, don’t want it all.”[2]
She was also distressed by Francesco’s extramarital affairs, which he carried on as usual. The birth of her husband’s second son with a sixteen-year-old servant troubled Margherita so deeply that she became seriously ill. Francesco found a husband for the girl, but the baby died after a few months.
Francesco was not irreligious. He often worried about his sins, interpreted contrarieties as God’s punishment, and kept promising to become “a new Francesco.” He never mentioned any sin in particular, and adultery and infidelity might have been low in his concerns, since they were not considered as serious in men as they were in women – something most wives had learned to accept.
While accepting the traditional position of submission to her husband, Margherita felt free to advise (and even reprove) him when it came to religion and morals. This was included, at that time, in the wife’s duties toward her husband, and was encouraged by preachers.
And Margherita had many pearls of wisdom to share – most likely, pearls she had gathered as she juggled the many responsibilities Francesco had placed on her shoulders, and as she persevered in spite of her loneliness, infertility, and chronic illness (which caused her debilitating pain with each menstruation).
Read More
Related Posts: