Perhaps the most important thing to say about race, in the typical American sense of the word,[1] is that it does not exist. Unlike sex, it has no biological reality, and unlike ethnicity, it has no cultural reality. The human community simply is not divided into half-a-dozen (or whatever) racial groups united by distinct genetic markers or a common culture. Let me explain this claim. The idea that race exists did not originate in Scripture. Scripture speaks of all human beings descending from one man, and thus the only “race” it knows is the one human race. Scripture distinguishes among humans, but does so in terms of people-groups. 

Race and racism are obviously controversial issues. Writing on the subject is a thankless task, bound to provoke accusations that an author is enthralled by some nefarious ideology and insufficiently enlightened by a better one. This essay has no agenda either to call out the church for racism or to strike the death blow against wokeness. It simply offers reflections on race and racism intended to help Reformed Christians work through these matters in humble, wise, and Christ-honoring ways. Five basic ideas guide these reflections. (A terminological note: I use “antiracist” to refer to scholars and activists who use this term to describe themselves, not as a general term for all people who think racism is immoral. Although antiracists differ amongst themselves on some issues, they share many core convictions addressed below.)
1. Race Does Not Exist, although Racism Does.
Perhaps the most important thing to say about race, in the typical American sense of the word,[1] is that it does not exist. Unlike sex, it has no biological reality, and unlike ethnicity, it has no cultural reality. The human community simply is not divided into half-a-dozen (or whatever) racial groups united by distinct genetic markers or a common culture. Let me explain this claim.
The idea that race exists did not originate in Scripture. Scripture speaks of all human beings descending from one man, and thus the only “race” it knows is the one human race. Scripture distinguishes among humans, but does so in terms of people-groups. Egyptians, Babylonians, Israelites, and dozens of others had different customs and religions, but they were not different races. The geographical theatre in which the biblical story unfolded, at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe, ensured that biblical writers were familiar with people of dark skin, light skin, and many shades in between, yet they gave no hint of regarding Cushites and Galatians (Celts) as racially separate.
Contemporary genetic science comes to the same conclusion. Mapping the human genome is one of the most amazing scientific accomplishments of recent decades. By studying the genetic information of living humans and comparing it to DNA from human remains of past millennia, genetic scientists have been able to reconstruct the migration of peoples and their inter-breeding with other peoples in ways hitherto impossible. Data is still coming in and scientists will undoubtedly modify their reconstructions, but one basic conclusion is clear: the modern conception of race has no genetic basis. People around the world are related to each other in complex and often counter-intuitive ways. Who would have thought, for example, that Western Africans are more closely related genetically to Western Europeans than to Eastern Africans? Population-groups have certain genetic markers distinguishing them from other population-groups, but this does not translate into anything corresponding to the “races” of modern mythology.[2]
Furthermore, race has no cultural reality because, unlike ethnic-groups, modern races (“black,” “white,” “Asian,” etc.) do not share a common culture. Rather, they consist of a multitude of groups with often very different histories, languages, and the like.
I do not know how many contemporary Reformed Christians believe that race is a biological and cultural reality, but they would be well-advised to abandon such a spurious notion.
Race, instead, is a figment of the human imagination. One way to put it is that race is a social construct.[3] Certain people in a certain historical context developed the notion of distinct human races. Although social constructs are not necessarily bad or unhelpful, this one was pernicious. Europeans constructed race in conjunction with the colonization of the Americas and the African slave-trade, and they used it to justify the subjugation of non-Europeans and the elevation of Europeans as morally and intellectually superior.[4]
This explains why racism exists even though race does not. (I take “racism” as treating and judging people not according to what is true about them but according to their racial categorization.) Social constructs can be powerful. Often what we imagine to be true shapes our thoughts, feelings, and behavior more strongly than what is actually true. Christians should understand this. Scripture emphasizes that there is no God but one. Yet idolatry exists and it is seductive. Baal was a construct of the human imagination, but it inspired people to dance around altars cutting themselves and provoked Israel to forsake the living God who redeemed them from bondage. Race is something like a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are based on fabrications, yet they can powerfully re-shape the lives of those who buy into them. They scare people into moving off the grid, rejecting life-saving vaccines, or hording gold coins under their mattress. Likewise, race is based on lies, but the idea became very important to those who believed those lies and forced others to live as if they were true.[5]
2. The Interests of Truth and Peace Call for De-Racialization.
If race is a fabrication of the sinful imagination, there seems to be one fundamental and necessary response: Deal with the idea as the lie it is. Stop acting as though race is real. Stop treating and judging people according to what is false. As people are unlikely to escape Baal-worship until they cease to think and act as though a powerful deity named Baal exists, so people are unlikely to escape racism until they cease to think and act as though race exists.
Some of what this entails is obvious, even if easy to overlook. Most of us have become aware of racial stereotypes and made efforts to give them up, but we all need to stay alert and keep striving to put them aside. Most of us have been warned about the hurt caused by racist jokes, although many people still tell them privately now and then, thinking no one is harmed. But whether in public or private, that is acting as though a destructive lie were true. Or consider some people’s habit of mentioning a person’s racial categorization when it is irrelevant: the European-American, for example, who relates a funny incident at the grocery store and describes one of the people involved as an “Asian guy,” although it has no bearing on the story. Perhaps she intends nothing malicious, but she perpetuates racial thought-patterns that have wrought profound harm.
Recognizing the myth of race calls for de-racialization. That is, to live by truth and at peace with all our fellow humans, we ought to (continue to) strip our minds of racial categories and treat our neighbors without respect to them.
What I just wrote is highly controversial. Its most prominent opponents, however, are not unrepentant racists but antiracists. For antiracists, the preceding paragraph promotes color-blindness, the idea that we should not see other people’s race. They believe this is a terrible thing that impedes racial justice and reconciliation rather than promotes it.[6] Progress, they argue, requires seeing racial tensions and dynamics everywhere. When “whites” do not see race, it manifests their dominant place in society and their privilege over others. “Whites” need to become increasingly cognizant of their “whiteness” and hence remain aware of others’ different identities.[7]
These antiracists have legitimate concerns. If wrongs have been done in the name of an imaginary concept, it is surely impossible to rectify wrongs and change course without mentioning that concept. To return to a previous analogy, the Old Testament prophets did not pretend as though they had never heard of Baal or ignore the seduction of idolatry. Likewise, battling racism throughout de-racialization should not mean that we simply stop talking about race and hope that this clears things up. Antiracists are also rightly concerned about an alleged color-blindness that sees the world only through the lens of one’s own cultural assumptions. Ceasing to judge people according to racial categorization should not mean making one’s own culture the universal standard. Cultural diversity is generally a good thing.[8] Finally, antiracists correctly oppose a color-blindness that evaluates all formally identical racial statements identically. For example, an African-American who says “black is beautiful” and a European-American who says “white is beautiful” make formally identical statements. But in the context of American history, they obviously do not communicate the same thing.[9]
These concerns should keep us from a simplistic color-blindness, but if we are concerned about truth and peace, our goal ought to be the elimination of thinking and acting in racial terms. The best strategy for getting there is open for debate, but it is far-fetched to think that the concept of race might disappear by demanding that people see all things through the lens of race.
Read More

This issue has caused disunity, confusion, and chaos in the PCA for far too long. If we desire that this particular sword should depart our house, then we will acknowledge that Overture 29 needs Overture 15 to be effective and pass both through our presbyteries. The two overtures go hand-in-hand. The one works through the other.

Recently, the Presbyterian Church in America held its 49th General Assembly in Birmingham, Alabama. Much lively debate was once again centered around issues of human sexuality. This was not out of choice or obsession, as most commissioners would readily admit, but out of necessity. Since 2018, the denomination has been rocked and troubled by the collective frustrations of Side-B “Gay Christianity” and the repercussions & lasting legacy of the Revoice Conference. It is the issue of the day in the PCA and everyone is looking for a solution to restore the peace and purity of the church. The most recent attempts at reaching a solution are Overtures 29 and 15, both of which are being sent out for presbytery approval
Many criticisms have mounted towards Overture 15, some with merit & some without. Let us consider Overture 15 in light of the Westminster Standards, the PCA’s own AIC Report of Human Sexuality, and Overture 29 itself. Let us see what it addresses and how it fits into the framework provided by these three streams of teaching.
False Dichotomy
First, a bit of context. Overture 29 was approved by the Overtures Committee, while Overture 15 was put forward to the assembly via minority report. Overture 29 was considered a ‘bipartisan’ success gaining wide support in the Overtures Committee and in the assembly, passing on the floor with a vote of 90% in favor and only one commissioner speaking against it. Overture 15 was the subject of significant floor debate, and passed the assembly with a much narrower 54% vote in favor.
Critics of either overture would like you to think that the two amendments are diametrically opposed. Some vocal proponents of Overture 15 argued that Overture 29 does not go far enough in its language and lacks teeth, leaving room for equivocation on the part of lower courts. Some who would see Overture 29 as a unifying compromise say that Overture 15 goes too far, that it will bind the courts and arbitrarily disqualify some men from church office.
The reality is that both of these views are wrong. As the minority report stated, Overture 29 wonderfully defines the standard, and Overture 15 clearly applies that standard by drawing a line in the sand that shall not be crossed. The truth is, to be effective & unifying in our current moment in the PCA, Overture 29 needs Overture 15. Taken together, these two overtures build up the defenses of the Book of Church Order’s standard of holiness for officers in light of repeated attacks on the Church from the world.
Amendments
To recap, Overture 29 seeks to amend BCO 16 by adding the following paragraph:
16-4. Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those 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 are not qualified for ordained office.
Our standard of conduct is always the Word of God, which transcends any culture; whether a sin is especially hated or excused in a particular society shall neither excuse those who are unrepentant nor bar those who are clearly repentant.
Overture 15 seeks to amend BCO 7 by adding the following paragraph:
7-4. Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
In Light of the Westminster Standards
It is often said that the Church does not invent new doctrine; it merely refines & codifies the teachings of Holy Scripture in light of challenges, controversies, or attacks from without or within. The standard which Overture 15 seeks to codify is not a new imposition upon the church or its requirements for officers. While it meets a particular need for the current time of difficulty the PCA finds itself in, the requirement is as old as the Reformed tradition itself.
Westminster Larger Catechism 139 clearly contains these sins & their attached desires as forbidden by the 7th Commandment. Besides expressly forbidding sodomy, there are also prohibitions on ‘all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections.’ Cherishing a homosexual or gay self-conception is clearly a product of an unclean imagination & affections, particularly realized within our postmodern era. A man holding to this decayed self-conception is worthy of our love, pity, and ministry of care, but not the weighty responsibility of church office.
It is almost as if the Westminster Divines were present in the 21st century to hear argumentation of Side B proponents. LC 139 goes beyond refraining from the external sin of sodomy and pushes us to remember the innermost places where we must be chaste: our hearts & minds. The divines would not have allowed men who serve as church officers to envelop themselves in worldly desires & appetites of the flesh as though they were not to be repented of, but instead used as casual descriptors. The divines would have directed such men to continue to seek Christ and to cast off what the world tells him about how his sin defines him and instead adopt what the Bible says about him as a new creation.
In Light of the AIC Report on Human Sexuality
The Ad-Interim Committee Report on Human Sexuality was received with broad support by all wings of the PCA when it was presented to the 48th General Assembly in 2021 for being eminently applicable in this area. It helped to clarify definitions, parse through seemingly impenetrable cultural language barriers, and provide context for conversations around sexuality. Overture 15 fits perfectly within its pastoral framework.
Statement 10 of the AIC Report states that it is ‘inappropriate to juxtapose this sinful desire, or any other sinful desire, as an identity marker alongside our identity as new creations in Christ.’
While recently it has become common practice in PCA circles to avoid “identity” language as it is often vague and unhelpful, here it stands as a synonym with the “describes” wording in Overture 15. The message is clear: Christians are to avoid defining or describing themselves by their sinful desires.
Statement 10 continues: ‘​​Our burden is that we do not justify our sin struggles by affixing them to our identity as Christians. Churches should be gentle, patient, and intentional with believers who call themselves “gay Christians,” encouraging them, as part of the process of sanctification, to leave behind identification language rooted in sinful desires, to live chaste lives, to refrain from entering into temptation, and to mortify their sinful desires.’
How can we as the Church come alongside believers struggling with homosexual desires and encourage them? How can the PCA tell our people that the Holy Spirit can progressively sanctify them, and at the same time allow our officers to describe themselves by their impure lusts & affections? How can we allow the promotion of a lifestyle of celibacy in our officers, at the expense of chastity? How can we minister to poor sinners caught up in homosexual lifestyles, when we have nothing to offer them but a life of outward conformity? This is the particular issue that Overture 15 addresses. Our officers must be above reproach in their Christian walk, not as an futile exercise in reaching perfection, but to serve their purpose of edifying the body.
In Light of Overture 29
Take a close look at what Overture 15 seeks to prohibit. Men ‘who describe themselves as homosexual’ are disqualified. This is not a statement of experience. This is not even a statement of temptation to sin. This is a statement of how a man, a supposedly mature Christian man who is being considered by a church as an officer candidate, describes himself.
Imagine an officer in the PCA habitually describing himself as a thief, a drunkard, an adulterer, or a rapist. You would surely be shaken by this self-description. You might have questions as to whether he is speaking of his past, before his conversion to Christ or in some great trial of sinful relapse. Tragically, he insists he is describing himself at the present time. Now, imagine this officer describing himself by these words, and then going on to say that while he abstains from these particular sins, he feels such a strong desire to commit these particular sins daily that he chooses to describe himself by those sinful desires. It is his chosen self-description of his Christian walk. He is a thieving Christian. He is a drunken Christian. He is a fornicating Christian. He binds himself up in his remaining corruption as a self-descriptor. This postmodern contortion cannot be made square with Paul’s admonition to ‘put off your old self’ (Eph. 4:22).
Overture 29 says that those ‘who deny the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or who fail to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office’. This is the language that won overwhelming support on the general assembly floor. This raises the question: who in the PCA is denying the reality & hope of progressive deliverance from their sinful temptations? Who is saying that their sinful desires describe them? It is not thieves nor drunkards. Sadly, it is homosexuals who are being deceived by the world that their desires are uniquely descriptive of their lives and are an intrinsic part of their humanity. Overture 15 takes the exegetical language of Overture 29 and applies it to our current controversy in the PCA, adding actionable teeth with its addition to Chapter 7 of the Book of Church Order, which is exactly where strict officer requirements are explicitly stated.
Conclusion
The rapid advance of LGBTQ+ ideology into broader culture, into institutions, and indeed, into the church, has clearly necessitated this response. The PCA has arrived at the moment where we are asking ourselves: how does the church preach not just Gospel redemption, but Gospel transformation to a listening world? One way is through its officers, the heralds of Christ’s kingdom. While no one on this side of glory will see perfection, these men are recognized by and for their exemplary Christian character more so than any other qualification. Remember Paul as he says ‘be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.’ (1 Cor. 11:1) Overture 15 seeks to apply this principle to the Side B/Revoice controversy.
This issue has caused disunity, confusion, and chaos in the PCA for far too long. If we desire that this particular sword should depart our house, then we will acknowledge that Overture 29 needs Overture 15 to be effective and pass both through our presbyteries. The two overtures go hand-in-hand. The one works through the other.
Joe Gibbons is a member of First Presbyterian Church in Hattiesburg, Miss. This article is used with permission.
Related Posts:

Looking to Christ by faith in His name means trusting in Him to supply what He has secured. We pray in Christ’s name as an act of faith in Him as the only Mediator and the fulfiller of the covenant promises. 

Certain practices have become so familiar among Christians that believers can be in danger of thoughtlessly performing them. We are all prone to simply going through the motions in our Christian lives. For instance, how often have we prayed the Lord’s Prayer without reflecting on the petitions that we are presenting to God? How often have we recited the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed without giving due consideration to the truths that we are confessing? We can easily go through the liturgical motions in a worship service without focusing on what we are doing before God. Similarly, it is altogether possible for believers to close their prayer with the words “in Jesus’ name” or “in Christ’s name” or “for Christ’s sake” as a sort of mindless mantra.
This raises the important question, Why should believers pray to God “in Jesus’ name”? If we are going to employ the name of Jesus in a conscientious way at the end of our prayers, a proper amount of theological reflection is required. Ultimately, we pray in Jesus’ name because He is the only Mediator between God and man, He fulfills all the covenant promises of God, and He is the object of our faith in God. Consider the following.
The Only Mediator
During His earthly ministry, Christ taught His disciples how they should approach God in prayer. He said: “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:13–14). “Whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you” (16:23). Jesus teaches us to do so because He is the exclusive Mediator between God and man. As Thomas Boston explained:
In whose name are we to pray? In the name of Jesus Christ, and of no other, neither saint nor angel, John 14:13. “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, says he, that will I do.” We must go to the Father, not in the name of any of the courtiers, Col. 2:18 but in the name of his Son, the only Mediator.
Read More
Related Posts: