We all struggle with the darkness of all types of sins.  My entire case for submitting the original overture is that the “public” announcement (like in Christianity Today) of constantly struggling with any particular sin disqualifies a man from holding office in the church.  The key word here is not the word “struggles” or even the word “sin,” but rather the word “public.”  What is public is a man’s reputation.  A man may fight privately with all types of sin which do not have dominion over him, but once he comes out of the closet and names those sins publicly to the whole world, he loses his eligibility to hold office. 

I appreciate the recent article in The Aquila Report, Clarity on Overture 15, by Ryan Biese.  It provided more precision in stating what Overture 15 actually says.  In this post, he takes issue with a public statement recently made by the PCA Stated Clerk summarizing the Overture as meaning that “the desire itself is disqualifying.” On the contrary, this Overture speaks of “men who describe themselves as homosexuals….” Mr. Biese is correct.  There is a big difference here.
Our Stated Clerk refers in this same public presentation to the fact that he had brought together in the same room those who are in opposition to each other on this issue.  Supposedly, this discussion produced a compromise resulting in Overtures 29 and 31. However, the Stated Clerk misjudged the PCA as a whole.  Overture 15 came out of nowhere like a misfired missile.
Well, I was not in the room! I have always been an outlier. Maybe I should have been in the room, since I was the originator of Overture 15 that came from Westminster Presbytery (in Southwest Virginia and Northeast Tennessee).  It originally came from the Session of my former Church who asked for my advice before they submitted this overture to our Presbytery several years ago.  The Overture was approved by our Presbytery, and then in good and proper parliamentary fashion disappeared at the 48th General Assembly in St. Louis.  This was what I call the first disappearance.
Early this year (2022) before the meeting of the General Assembly in Birmingham, I submitted the overture again to Westminster Presbytery, but it was lost when it was sent to a Committee. I think it was inadvertently lost in the transmission from the Clerk of Presbytery to the Chairman of the Committee. This was the second disappearance.
Because it was lost, I later reminded Presbytery that it had vanished.  I also reminded them that I had submitted it at the previous Presbytery meeting.  At this point I had finally made a decision to withdraw it altogether.  I was thinking that the Lord must have a purpose in what appeared to be some type of providential evaporation of this overture.  So, the overture was sent back to the same Presbytery committee to act upon my request to withdraw it from any further consideration. Later, a member of that Committee, representing the Committee as a whole, called me and asked that I not withdraw it, and that it be presented to Westminster Presbytery a third time.  I agreed, and it was adopted by Presbytery and sent to the General Assembly.  So, the “big one” (now Overture 15) almost did not make it to the General Assembly.  God works in mysterious ways. Just think—and we would never have heard the famous speech by Dr. Palmer Robertson!
As I have mentioned before (Overture 15 – The Tipping Point for a Split in the PCA? – July 18) in The Aquila Report, I expect BCO Changes in Overtures with numbers 29 and 31 to be to be adopted by 2/3 of the presbyteries and then pass by a majority vote at the next General Assembly.  Victory will be declared and everything will go on the same in the PCA, except there will be a few more churches leave our denomination.  From a statement that Greg Johnson made on the floor of the General Assembly this year, he appears to be able to live with these changes in the Book of Church Order, so that should tell you all you need to know about them.
Let me add a little more precision to the meaning of the original overture which was slightly edited by the Overtures Committee in Birmingham.  The word “Identify” was changed to “describe.”  Evidently, for some major reason, the word “identify” is a bad word in this context.  Better to speak of those who “describe themselves as homosexuals.” I don’t particularly like this change in wording, but the Overture belongs to the Church now and not to me.
My original intent in what has become Overture 15 was not to disqualify from office in the PCA anyone who struggles with sin, either homosexuality, incest, or even bestiality (or even theft or murder). Don’t be shocked about incest and bestiality, especially as some college students are now taking litterboxes with them to their classrooms.  This is not the reason I submitted the original overture.  I do believe that homosexuality, incest, or even bestiality are more heinous sins.  They are perversions of God’s created order. They are more specifically called abominations by God.  However, even this was not the reason I submitted the original overture.
We all struggle with the darkness of all types of sins.  My entire case for submitting the original overture is that the “public” announcement (like in Christianity Today) of constantly struggling with any particular sin disqualifies a man from holding office in the church.  The key word here is not the word “struggles” or even the word “sin,” but rather the word “public.”  What is public is a man’s reputation.  A man may fight privately with all types of sin which do not have dominion over him, but once he comes out of the closet and names those sins publicly to the whole world, he loses his eligibility to hold office.  The biblical basis for this is that a man who holds office must be of “good repute with those outside of the church” (1 Tim. 3:7).  In a wicked society like today, this public announcement that a man is a homosexual may be viewed with admiration by those outside the church, but in the context of the biblical era, it was shameful. Letting people know that we struggle with sin in general is biblical (Rms. 7), but once we begin to name them particularly and talk about them all the time, then we move beyond the exemplar of the Bible.
Thus, I believe that a man may struggle constantly with homosexual desires and still hold office in the church.  As long as it is private and he keeps it private.  We all have private sinful thoughts and tendencies that are only known to us and to God.  However, if we have concluded that they do not have dominion over us, and by God’s grace we can handle them in a biblical fashion, then we may legitimately deduce that we are not disqualified from holding office.  There is no biblical requisite that we publicly broadcast our particular struggles. Once a man comes out of the closet, especially as he identifies himself with the genre of homosexuality in terms of dress and various other signals, he loses his reputation and the right to speak God’s Word authoritatively.
Contrary to the PCA Stated Clerk, the mere existence of the desire of homosexuality is not the issue.  The issue is neither self-identification (or self-description) as long as that self-identification is private.  However, public acknowledgement to the world is a whole different matter.  At least it was to the Apostle Paul.  My intent of the proposed amendment to the BCO was specifically about those who publicly describe themselves as homosexuals.  The publication of the existence of a man’s lust to those outside the church makes it very dangerous to the individual, to those who sit under his oversight, and to young people who are tempted to experiment with the unknown. It will definitely change the attitude of the next generation. It spreads like cancer, especially in a woke culture.  In addition, it hurts the reputation of the church.  It damages the gospel of Jesus Christ. It disqualifies a man from being an ordained representative of our Savior.
A generation known for humility and extreme privacy (such as the World War II generation) has produced a generation that appears to need public recognition, whether it be for righteousness or for sinfulness.  So, it is not a matter of temptation, sinful thoughts, or even private self-assessment. It’s a matter of the public reputation of a man who has been given the right by the visible church to speak publicly in the name of God.
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:

Food is good. It nourishes us physically and brings us together socially. Eating can be a real pleasure. Food is a blessing from God that should be enjoyed. Gluttony, however, is a sin. And it represents an undeniable danger to our godliness. As God’s people we should supplant it in our lives with self-control and discipline. In doing this we will honour and glorify God with the way that we eat.

Have you ever thought that overeating could be a threat to your godliness?
If you pay attention to what doctors are saying, you may have considered the health risks related to eating too much. If you’re not too wealthy, you probably consider the threat of overeating for your bank balance. But the purpose of this article isn’t to consider health risks or budgeting. For overeating, properly called gluttony, is a sin. Simple. And we need to guard against it. Gluttony is as much, if not more of a spiritual danger than it is a physical or a financial one.
Alright, What is Gluttony?
Gluttony is a word that is for the most part far from the modern mindset. It’s a word I rarely hear; an issue that even fewer are concerned about. Simply defined, gluttony is eating and drinking in excess. It’s a drive to indulge beyond the sating of our hunger.
The thought that eating in excess is sinful, or has spiritual implications, isn’t one that’s often presented in the modern church, especially not in urban settings. There are so many more overt spiritual threats that these more seemingly innocuous ones are overshadowed. Nevertheless, it is a danger to us. It’s a danger that we are clearly warned about in the Bible. Furthermore, it’s incompatible with the godly life that God calls us to live.
Does God Have Anything to Say About Gluttony?
Before turning our attention to gluttony, it’s worth highlighting that God calls food a good gift (Genesis 1:29; 9:3). It’s right for us to appreciate and enjoy it (Psalm 104:14-15). However, as with most gifts God has given us, the issue comes when we abuse it; not when we simply enjoy it.
Thus the Lord doesn’t spend very much time speaking directly into gluttony in scripture. It is important to note, however, that every one of the instances in which gluttony is mentioned explicitly, it’s portrayed negatively. As we examine the Bible and we reflect on the conduct God calls us to, we see clearly that gluttony is sinful. Overeating is displeasing to the Lord. 
In Deuteronomy 21:20 we see the character of a rebellious son that merits being brought before the leaders for condemnation. He is described as being “a glutton and a drunkard,” in addition to being disobedient and stubborn.
Likewise, in Proverbs 23 we see warnings about the dangers of gluttony.
Read More
Related Posts:

 Jesus “is the mediator of a new covenant” (Heb. 9:15) we no longer need to offer burnt offerings. Christ has, “by means of his own blood” secured “an eternal redemption” (v. 12), and purified “our conscience from dead works to serve the living God (v. 14). Dear believer, if today you lack assurance of God’s grace, look to Christ.

Many believers misunderstand God’s grace, and therefore lack assurance of it. They wonder if they are really saved. They live thinking they are never enough. They wonder if they forget to confess some of their sins if they will be kept from the kingdom of heaven. They may look at mature Christians and think they fall short of what it means to be a believer. But God doesn’t want His children to live this way. He wants His people to rest in His grace. There are many books of the Bible from which we could learn about the grace of God, and perhaps there aren’t too many Christians who would first think of Leviticus. Yet this book, which spans one month of time in Israel’s history, contains commands that repeatedly point us to God’s grace. In particular, it begins with commands concerning the sacrificial system God gave His people. Although we could focus on any one of the different aspects of this sacrificial system, I want to begin where the book itself begins, with the burnt offering (Lev. 1:1-17).
Not everyone in Israel could afford to bring the same kind of burnt offering, but the Lord, in His grace, made allowance for all peoples, whether rich or poor, to approach Him (Lev. 1:3, 10, 14). This did not mean that the rich could bring a lesser animal than they could afford. After all, sacrifice is supposed to be costly. But God, in His mercy, designed things so that all people had a way to come before Him and receive forgiveness of sins.
The animal would be accepted in place of the offerer in order to make atonement for his sins (Lev. 1:4). The burnt offering was a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord.
Read More
Related Posts: