The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.

The Book of Church Order (BCO) 32-20, as it presently stands, binds the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of public scandal where the reputation of Christ is at stake. The question is: do we really want to remove this requirement for the Church to act in a timely manner in cases of scandal? The proposed amendment does so. For the honor of Christ, we should preserve this requirement, vote down the proposed amendment, and seek an amendment that better addresses the valid concerns raised in the original overture.
BCO 32-20
The present version of BCO 32-20 reads, “Process, in case of scandal, shall commence within the space of one year after the offense was committed, unless it has recently become flagrant” (emphasis added). Timely action is not optional: in cases scandal the Church shall act within the space of one year.
Ramsay and Smith’s Comment on BCO 32-20
In commenting on this paragraph in the PCA’s BCO, both F. P. Ramsay and Morton Smith say the purpose is to incite the church to the prompt prosecution of scandal (a flagrant public offense of practice which is bringing open disgrace on Christ). Ramsay explains:
The principle is that, if the Church neglects to commence process against scandal (which is any flagrant public offence of practice bringing disgrace on the Church) within a year, she is debarred from thereafter doing it. This is not to shield the offender, but to incite to the prompt prosecution of such offences. Offences not so serious or scandalous the Church may bear with the longer while seeking to prevent scandal; but for no consideration is the Church to tolerate such offences as are scandalous.
Do we really want to remove this incitement, this incentive?
Context
Overture 22 was brought before the PCA General Assembly past midnight on Thursday night. We were informed by the stated clerk that the venue was requiring us to leave by 12:45AM. Consequently, the Assembly didn’t have much time or energy to give this overture due consideration. A substitute motion was made to refer Overture 22 to the following year’s Overtures Committee, but (predictably, given the time), there was no discussion. The substitute motion was defeated and the proposed amendment passed.
A revision to BCO 32-20 deserves better consideration.
The Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment does not so much revise BCO 32-20 as it removes one provision and substitutes it with another. It removes the requirement binding the church to act in a timely manner to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of scandal. In its place, it leaves the question of what constitutes a timely matter to uncertain whims of individual church courts resulting in differing actions based on undefined variables.
The proposed amendment reads: “There is no statute of limitations, per se, for prosecuting offenses. However, the accused or member of the court may object to the consideration of a charge, for example, if he thinks the passage of time since the alleged offense makes fair adjudication unachievable. The court should consider factors such as the gravity of the alleged offense as well as what degradations of evidence and memory may have occurred in the intervening period.”
Why One Year?
Overture 22 treated BCO 32-20, in effect, as a statute of limitations. It recognized that BCO 32-20 does not establish a statute of limitations for all offenses. Then it went on to argue that a statute of limitations of one-year makes little sense for cases of scandal. “Expeditious process is certainly important in such a case, but if the cause of Christ is jeopardized by the Church’s neglect of timely discipline, how would disallowing prosecution on day 366 repair the matter? The scandal would continue, unabated.”
Ramsay does say that the effect of BCO 32-20 is that, if the Church fails to act within a year in a case of scandal, she is debarred thereafter from doing it. But then he points out that the intent is not to shield the offender (the main purpose is not to establish a statute of limitations): the purpose is to incite the Church to act to uphold the honor of Christ in cases of public scandal.
Still, the question stands: what is the point of debarring the Church from acting after one year? The point of acting within a year is to ensure that fair adjudication takes place while it is still achievable—before degradations of evidence and memory make it impossible. In less serious matters, as Ramsay points out, the Church may risk the passage of time while it labors to avoid scandal. But in cases where Christ’s name is already being drug through the mud, the Church must take prompt action. It cannot risk degradations of evidence and memory making adjudication impossible: then the scandal really would continue, unabated!
What about Cases of Abuse?
Overture 22 did point out a valid concern: cases of alleged abuse. It is difficult to commence process within the space of one year after the offense was committed, since allegations of abuse often surface and become scandalous well after the alleged abuse took place. The present version of BCO 32-20 does seem to make adjudication impossible in such cases, and this weakness in the PCA’s BCO should be addressed.
But a better revision should continue to bind the Church to address allegations of abuse promptly. It could, for instance, be revised to say the church shall act within the space of one year after the offense has become scandalous. In the case of scandal, the “start time” is typically definite: there was a time the scandal broke and become public. In the case of abuse, there is a definite time when the allegation was made. We should bind ourselves to take those allegations seriously and commence process in a timely manner while fair adjudication is still possible—both for the honor of Christ and the good of alleged victim.
Precedent Cases
There is no need to amend BCO 32-20 in such a drastic way. The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) found the present wording in BCO 32-20 useful in deciding a number of recent cases.[1] If the proposed amendment were in force these cases might have been judged with different outcomes. This provision has been tested and found useful, not wanting as is alleged in the reasoning for changing it.
Conclusion
For the honor of Christ, we need to amend the present wording of BCO 32-20, let us offer wording that does not remove the principles that have guided the PCA since its beginning. We can seek to address those valid concerns raised by Overture 22 without eviscerating the entirety of the present wording, and at the same time will continue to bind the Church to act promptly in cases of scandal, including abuse. Overture 22 recognizes that expeditious process is important in such cases, but the proposed amendment may actually be fighting against itself by effectively removing this requirement. In reality, the proposed amendment lets church courts off the hook by allowing them to delay acting when justice demands speedier judicial process.
Since we as can do better than what the BCO 32-20 amendment proposes, presbyteries should vote not to approve the amendment, and then let us work on drafting a more effective one.
Anton Heuss is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Bethel PCA in Dallas, Texas.
[1] Here are two cases decided by the Standing Judicial Commission using the present wording of BCO 32-20. These precedents have already proved useful in guiding lower church courts in their conduct of cases. See SJC 2016-05, Troxell v Southwest Presbytery (https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ga/45th_pcaga_2017.pdf, pp. 514-520), and SJC 2019-08, Ganzel v Central Florida Presbytery (to be published in the Minutes of the 48th General Assembly).

State of Theology: Christian Societal Responsibility
23. Christians should be silent on issues of politics.
This question deals with the Christian’s responsibility regarding society, which is clearly implied in Scripture.  While Scripture does not direct or imply any particular level or nature of political involvement, it is clear that Christians should be deeply concerned about the society in which they live, seeking to improve it in ways that glorify God (Jeremiah 29:7).  Israelites were commanded to care for widows, orphans, and sojourners (Deuteronomy 14:29 and 24:17) as well as to relentlessly pursue justice and mercy (Exodus 23:6, Zechariah 7:9).  While these commands could be considered part of the civil law, they are undergirded by the moral law that is still just as binding today as it was then.  They are part of loving your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:8) and not neglecting the weighty matters of justice (Matthew 23:23) as clearly taught by Jesus.  Many political issues are issues of justice, so to be silent about them is to disobey these commands.  Scripture is equally clear that silence in the face of injustice and oppression are just as sinful as the injustice and oppression themselves (Job 31:16-23, Isaiah 1:16, Ezekiel 22:6-12).  This means it is incompatible with Scripture to say that Christians should be silent on political issues in general.  Over half of respondents across all categories affirmed that silence about politics is not commanded in Scripture, ranging from 56% of regularly attending Northeasterners to 76% of Midwest evangelicals.  These results are mixed, but generally positive.  While there is certainly room for debate as to how much political involvement is prudent and appropriate, it would be improper to say that silence is required.  However, it is equally important to stress that while individual Christians can be involved in the political process, it is not the place of churches to be officially involved in politics.  We do not wage war using the weapons of the world (2 Corinthians 10:4), including politics.  The Gospel is what truly transforms society, and history teaches that such transformations are often slow.  Churches must focus on the Gospel, which then compels individual believers to act in ways that advance the Kingdom of God much as it compelled people like William Wilberforce to fight against slavery over two centuries ago.
State of Theology: Extramarital Sex
25. Sex outside of traditional marriage is a sin.
This question is explicitly addressed in Scripture by the Seventh Commandment as interpreted by Jesus (Matthew 7:27-32).  Scripture therefore defines “traditional marriage” as the covenantal union between one man and one woman as established by God to reflect the diversity and unity of the Trinity as well as the union between Christ and the Church (Genesis 1:28, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1 Peter 1:7).  Throughout Scripture, sex outside of this union is prohibited (Leviticus 15 and 20, Proverbs 5-7, Mark 10:1-12, 1 Corinthians 5-6).  This is further echoed by Paul with his use of the generic term “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside of God’s definition of marriage (Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 4:3).  Thus, Scripture is clear that sex outside of traditional marriage (as defined by God) is sinful.  While over half of respondents across all categories except the Northeast (at 39%) affirmed this, it is concerning that results both overall (53%) and for the Midwest (54%) were also relatively low for something so clearly taught by Scripture.  Only with regularly attending evangelicals nationwide and in the Midwest were results better than 80%, showing that in certain regions and denominations the sin of extramarital sex has either been denied or neglected.  This is especially concerning when we consider that this question only deals with the act of sex and not with lust, which Jesus equates with adultery (Matthew 5:27-28).  Had the question included lustful thoughts, pornography, and other forms of sexual immorality outside of sex itself, I fear the results would have been much more negative.  Still, it is slightly encouraging to see that in our hypersexualized society, the majority in most categories did affirm the sinfulness of extramarital sex, even if it was only a slight majority.
State of Theology: Abortion
26. Abortion is a sin.
The question of abortion is not clearly addressed in any passage of Scripture but is clearly implied by Scripture overall.  Since the term “abortion” does not appear in Scripture, it must be defined first.  For our purposes, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the willful killing of the baby in the womb. Thus abortion is a premediated act and not the death of the child during an act of medical necessity to save the mother’s life.  Being the killing of a baby, abortion is sinful if it falls outside of the limitations for killing in Scripture.  The command against killing in Scripture rooted in the Sixth Commandment forbidding murder, which is reiterated by Jesus, proving that it is part of the moral law and thus still applicable today (Matthew 5:21, 15:19, and 19:18, Mark 7:21 and 10:19, Luke 18:20).  While speaking His covenant to Noah, God says “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6).  This comes just before God reiterates the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply (verse 7), so it refers to all mankind (men and women of all ages).  This establishes that since people are made in the image of God, killing them is a grave sin apart from specific circumstances explicitly set out by God.  The first of these caveats is seen in this passage: punishment for murder or other serious crimes, which must only come after a just conviction (Numbers 35:30, see also Exodus 21:12-14. Leviticus 24:17-18, Numbers 35:31).  The second is the killing of enemy combatants in battle (which is allowed in certain circumstances throughout Scripture) and when the death of a perpetrator happens due to self-defense that was not premeditated (Exodus 22:2-3).  Scripturally, the killing of a person outside of these caveats is murder and thus sinful.
Scripture is equally clear that a baby in the womb is a person with equal worth to any other person.

It’s hard to give a defense for the faith that is within you if you can’t give up the things of the world in order to follow Christ. We show the world how we love Jesus a lot more by how we act and prioritize our life than what we say to them in words. If we do not value the things of God then as the example of the Northern Kingdom shows us the Lord will take them away from us, and then where will we be? Our idols can never give what we lose in not having the fulness of Christ in our being and in our soul.

Jet lag is a thing, but I seem to be handling it well and without much trouble. I was a little bit on the struggle bus yesterday for morning and evening worship along with Sabbath School. However, the Spirit was faithful to give me strength and lead me through it all. It helped that we had a luncheon that fueled me with all the great food I may have missed while in Namibia. Bethany folks can cook like no one’s business and the fact that I was honored to receive so many cards and well-wishes for pastor’s appreciation it made it easy to serve. I am truly a blessed man.
Of the many lessons I learned while at the International Conference of Reformed Churches is that the world is at the same time a lot smaller than I once thought and also a lot bigger at the same time. What I mean by that is when I had the opportunity to speak to folks in the local churches in Windhoek they spoke of similar issues (materialism, globalism, busyness, etc…) that our church back in Clover deals with. There truly is nothing new under the sun. Yet, on the other hand the stories I heard from brothers in India, Indonesia, and Northern Ireland reminded me that while we have issues in the United States they pale in comparison to what our brothers and sisters face in Europe, Africa, and Asia. We are truly privileged to experience what little persecution we undergo in North America. That is not to downplay the real troubles we have on the horizon, but we are not quite in the same ballpark as some of our other brothers. In our prayer and worship help today I want to talk a little bit about what we can learn from how they are handling these troubles for when the piper comes calling on our shores.
As I sat and conversated with brothers from South Sudan as an example a thing that one of the men chuckled in jest as he said it was that they have no chaff in their churches. What he meant by that was that in a cultural situation where being named a follower of Christ has fatal consequences in some cases no one is going to pretend to be a believer. He wasn’t communicating that his local congregation was made up of only the elect, but that serious believers made up the totality of the membership.
Read More
Related Posts: