The PCA Should Seek a Better Revision: Reasons to Vote Against Amending BCO 32-20
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).
-
Where Are We Going and Where Have We Been?
The LGBTQ agenda has become the new orthodoxy of woke culture. Anyone who even questions it is declared a heretic and cast from society for blasphemy. In this cultural setting we can expect resistance to and eventually persecution of those who hold to biblical orthodoxy. This agenda is new in recent Western history, so it is important for us to take a look at ancient history. History is crucial for understanding the theological and spiritual implications of homosexuality for the thinking of today’s church and culture.
The cultural conflict is no longer simply political. The economic value of socialism or capitalism is no longer the debate separating citizens. It is, rather, what our children are learning, whether in non-Christian state schools or even in some Christian schools, about their sexuality, their family life and the theological issues that determine ultimate meaning.
The Sixties was a key moment for Western culture. It might be hard to imagine, but when I was growing up as a lad in working-class Liverpool, England, and even when I became a young man in the Fifties, I had never even heard the word “homosexual.” If, by some chance, that word came up at one time, I would not have known what it meant. Then came the Sixties, when deviant sexuality exploded into the public square and now “alternate” sex is seen as normative.
Normalizing the LGBTQ Agenda
The present administration boasts that its cabinet has more female, gay, black and trans members than ever before. It went further in the normalization of sexual extremism by appointing Sam Brinton to the Department of Energy, where he is responsible for nuclear waste. It seems he took “nuclear” to heart, appearing at the White House in high-heeled shoes, bright lipstick, a striking moustache—and sporting a fetching dress he had stolen at an airport luggage collection point! When his theft was uncovered, the administration reluctantly let him go. The Biden Administration also elevated Rachel (née Richard) Levine, a trans lad/lass with flowing golden tresses. Levine is a four-star admiral who holds the post of Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. In public, he proudly presents in formal naval attire, thus reinforcing the administration’s position on transgenderism. This is the new political norm,[1] which the President made official. At the end of the “Proclamation on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month, 2023” the president declared (joining God and queer issues) that the month of June was to be a time for all Americans to “recognize the achievements of the LGBTQI+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high.” The final line states: “In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-seventh.”
It’s little wonder that “nearly every major U.S. brand promulgates the LGBT agenda,”[2] and many people are proud of their support of LGBTQ issues. This is especially true of sports personalities. Georgia Marie Stanway, captain of the British ladies’ soccer team, exults: “We’re never shy in saying what we stand for. We’re a squad that promotes inclusivity, equality, we obviously have a number of people that feel very strongly about it.”[3] The California Senate engaged in a ceremony honoring “The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.[4] The “Sisters” are gay men dressed as nuns, who make fun of the traditional nuns’ view of sex. They are drag queens in nun outfits, calling themselves by obscene names, peddling hatred and reveling in blasphemy. Americans are a tolerant people. But we should realize that sexual deviance has by now become an issue to divide the nation into the morally and socially cool, versus the luddites.
They Are Coming for Our Children in Their Schools
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, friend of Jeffrey Epstein and visitor to his island, has invested tens of millions of dollars in a radical nongovernmental organization called the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is endorsed by the World Health Organization. The IPPF is pushing for young children to be considered “sexual beings.” “Sexual activity may be part of different types of relationships, including dating, marriage, or commercial sex work, among others,” IPPF said, about what children under 10 should be taught. The toolkit said that children under 10 should also be told: “As you grow up, you might start to be interested in people with diverse gender identities.”[5]This view is taught in numerous schools.
Such explicit instruction is clearly emphasized in the drag queen shows put on in public libraries for children all over the country, developing in them an interest for “diverse gender identities,” that is, interest in non-binary sexual androgyny in which sexual identities are joined in a hopeless mish-mash. This androgynous sex is expressed in: homosexuality, in which both males become females in their love-making; bi-sexuality, in which a person enjoys both male and female sex; transgenderism, in which a male or female person pretends to be the opposite sex; and in drag queen practice. Interestingly, Texas Christian University now offers a course teaching that the male/female gender binary is an expression of white supremacy![6] It also discusses how to create a drag persona. As the culmination of this “academic work,” students participate in a performance in the university’s annual drag show.
They Are Coming for Our Children in Our Churches
On Monday, June 5, 2023, the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine hosted a “Faith Perspectives Panel” examining the intersection of religion and the LGBTQ+ movement as part of the Cathedral’s iconic Pride celebration. The panel discussion centered around deconstructing the “binary view” of the church, namely the doctrine of God the Creator.[7]
In June, 2023, another Lutheran female “minister” recited a heretical “Sparkle Creed” as part of a recent church service, (about which I have already commented).[8] The Edina Community Lutheran Church (ECLC) “minister,” Anna Helgen, led the congregation in the “creed”:
I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural. I believe in Jesus Christ, their child who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God.I believe in the rainbow spirit who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity….
Read More
Related Posts: -
Asking the Right Questions
Written by R.C. Sproul |
Saturday, September 18, 2021
God loves to answer questions—the “stupider” the better—because He loves for us to have the ultimate truth we need to complete the sentence “I believe . . . ” He never loses patience with a question, and neither do people who are serving Him. If you take a question to more mature Christians, those who really are men or women of God, you likely will find they don’t think it is so dumb. Maybe they used to struggle with the same thing. Maybe they still do.Sometimes it is less important to have the right answers than to have the right questions. A man named Saul thought he did not need to ask any questions. He had all the answers. The most important question, according to Saul, was “How can I be good enough for God?” He thought he had that answer down cold.
The only problem was, he was wrong. American humorist Will Rogers could have told Saul, “It’s not what you don’t know that will get you in trouble, but what you know for certain that just ain’t so.” Saul’s problem lay in the question “How can I be good enough?”
The answer, of course, is that he couldn’t. But he didn’t understand the holiness of God. No one who is separated from God understands His holiness. To tell you the truth, not many Christians do either.
Saul had never asked the right questions. I think non-Christians often don’t ask religious questions because down deep inside they have a sneaking suspicion of what the answers might be, and they don’t like them. But Christians also are afraid of questions for the same reason, so they get into trouble. Or they are afraid other Christians will call them “doubters” if they are overhead asking the wrong question. They don’t want to seem unspiritual or stupid. They also may be afraid God will lose patience with them.
Read More -
Responding to God’s Discipline
The Lord pursues His children, even to the depths of the seas of rebellion. When we flee His presence, He follows us. His purposes and plans will not be thwarted by our game of hide and seek. The Almighty God knows our hiding places and in His grace and mercy finds us.
When was the last time you failed to follow God’s call to holiness? Maybe you knew you should give a gracious answer, but instead responded to a friend, spouse, or child with anger. Perhaps you knew you were to be content in a situation, but discontentment filled your heart. Or maybe you knew God would take care of you and your loved ones, but you didn’t stop worrying until the situation was over. Regardless, if we’re honest there are many times when we know what would be pleasing to the Lord, but instead we sin with our words or actions. Like our children, we need to be disciplined. Thankfully, our heavenly Father disciplines us for our good, so that we might grow in godliness. Perhaps no book of the Bible teaches this better than the book of Jonah.
If you’re familiar with the book of Jonah, you will recall that God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh to tell the people that God is bringing disaster upon them because of their evil. However, instead of following God’s call, Jonah flees, sailing in the opposite direction of Nineveh. But the Lord caused a bad storm on the sea that threatened the safety of the sailors. Seeking to save the ship, they cried out to their gods, tossed cargo overboard, asked Jonah to cry out to his God, cast lots to see whose fault it was, and even threw Jonah overboard. It was the latter that stopped the storm. Remarkably, the sailors recognized the power of the true God and worshiped Him.
Meanwhile, the Lord appointed a fish to swallow Jonah. For three days and three nights he remained in its belly. Finally, in the darkness Jonah repented and the Lord had the fish vomit him onto dry land. The story of Jonah goes on to tell of his ministry in Nineveh, the mighty cries of the Ninevites that averted God’s judgment, and the misery of Jonah after witnessing God’s grace upon the wicked. But I want to focus on what happened in the belly of the fish because it instructs us on how to respond to God’s discipline.
Read More
Related Posts:
