Written by Glenn D. Jerrell |
Thursday, July 28, 2022
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.

Introduction
When one is not a commissioner to a General Assembly (GA), the temptation to answer a speech while it is being given is absent because you don’t have the privilege of the floor. Listening to the proceedings at a GA is a true learning experience. That was my situation during the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). It is helpful to sit back and just take it all in. This article contains observations based on certain speeches on Overture 2 and Mike Myers’ two articles (here and here) published in the Aquila Report, as well as some historical reflections.
Overture 2, proposed to the 2022 GA of the OPC by the Presbytery of Ohio, approached abuse with a wide range of considerations that pastors, sessions, congregations, and presbyteries would find helpful in support of their gospel/shepherding ministries.
As an onlooker, it appeared that the opposition to Overture 2 by Mr. Myers and others ended up squandering a full hearing for the GA, the Ohio presbytery, and for themselves. How? The opposition sacrificed a comprehensive study of abuse, trading it for a partial, more limited consideration of the subject and leaving the larger controversy for another day. In the end, a substitute motion replaced the recommendations of the Presbytery of Ohio in Overture 2, which had also been supported by the Advisory Committee that examined the proposed overture. Adoption of the substitute meant that the church did not interact with all the points raised by both the presbytery and Mr. Myers, and further, the lengthy consideration of Overture 2 consumed so much time that important matters from other presbyteries received short shrift.
Mandate 1 of Overture 2I.A.1. Of Overture 2: “Collect, study, and develop resources related to the many forms of abuse that manifest themselves in the church (sexual, domestic, ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, psychological, etc.).”
The substitute that prevailed squeezed much of the life out of Overture 2. What was adopted certainly needs attention but what the 88th GA adopted eliminated consideration of a wide range of issues our churches are facing today. The church needs help and instruction in recognizing both the spectrum of sins involved in abuse and the too often overlooked need of supporting the victims of abuse. Tragically, some of the concerns in Overture 2 must wait for another day for GA help. The committee the GA established could serve the church well by identifying areas that need further study.
Mandate 2 of Overture 2I.A.2.: “Produce and recommend to the church resources to equip pastors, sessions, and presbyteries to recognize and respond to allegations and and instances of abuse in ways that honor Jesus Christ, comport with the laws of the land, and promote justice for victims and perpetrators.”
Overture 2 was carefully thought out and well written. It shows due diligence. How do we respond to claims of abuse? Do we doubt the accuser? Do we affirm the accuser? Do we take the claim seriously? How do we protect the accuser? And what about the accused? How does the church respond to the accused? Do we believe them? Do we take their claims seriously? We need resources. When an adult says I was sexually molested as a child and I still dream about it, how does the church respond? When do you bring in the police? How do we respond to a congregant who seeks help with a manipulating minister or ruling elder? We need to practice listening. Hearing the stories of abused OPC members, of those who have felt pushed out of the OPC, and of a multitude of other situations, the depth of the problems and the need for instruction becomes clearer and more urgent. What about those who don’t feel safe at a presbytery meeting, or in a local church. These situations exist, they are real life. The Presbytery of Ohio obviously has a passion for pastoring the people of God in a full, rich, and loving way. Perhaps this could become a class for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC?
Mandate 3 of Overture 2I.A.3. “Recommend to a future General Assembly, if appropriate, possible amendments to the Book of Church Order that more explicitly address the sin of abuse.”
Yes, there are some changes that might be considered to better serve in a wide array of abuse cases. Our current book provides adequate protection for the accused but what about the accuser? They also need consideration and protection. All need shepherding. What about protections for the victims of sin, that is a man or woman, a boy or girl, those in the pew? The subject matter of Overture 2 must not be forgotten because the OPC needs to address the pastoral questions raised by abuse. “Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them” (Ecc. 4:1 ESV).
The four grounds provided for Overture 2 (see below) provide the rationale for the recommendation of the Presbytery of Ohio.
Mandate B of Overture 2B. “Authorize the committee to invite Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse to assist the Committee as non-voting consultants.”
At the Assembly, the above quoted section of Overture 2 sparked a significant amount of controversy. Those in favor of II.B of Overture 2 ended up making a number of speeches during debate, but not as many as the opponents.  An amendment to replace the words “Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse” with “North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) officers” failed. But the substitute reveals gaps in biblical thinking. The substitute would have severely restricted who may be consulted. It was asked “will it be required that these Christians hold reformed convictions?” This substitute would have had the effect of failing to consult with
1) Reformed churches around the world;
2) men and women in the OPC holding the general office of believer; and
3) knowledgeable men and women in the church universal.
Does not the “NAPARC officers” amendment contain an implicit assertion that only Reformed Christian officers have contributions to be made on the subject of abuse, and that there are no contributions to be made by non-Christians, thus denying common grace?
The above gaps reflect a less than robustly biblical engagement with God’s people and the world around them. Each of the points above were mentioned in speeches made on the floor. The Assembly listened and the “NAPARC officers” substitute was defeated.
Ground 1 of Overture 2“Allegations and instances of misuse of power of various kinds (commonly termed ‘abuse’) have become increasingly known in our society and in the church. Reports, testimonies, and confessions of abuse raise complex legal, theological, and pastoral issues we cannot minimize, ignore or dismiss.”
The suggestion made that Overture 2 is possibly opening the doors of the OPC to a woke understanding of abuse is baffling.  Where are the signs of the OPC going woke? This suggestion sounds hollow. Is the article questioning whether large areas of the sin of abuse exist? The best way to avoid being accused of following the world is not to ignore issues raised by the world, but to outthink the world on these issues.
Ground 2 of Overture 2“The sins of abuse are expressly forbidden by Scripture and the Westminster Standards. (For example, see 2 Timothy 3:2–5; Jude 7; Exodus 21:15; Deuteronomy 22:25–27; also, WLC 135 and 139) and are especially heinous as they are ‘against the express letter of the law,’ ‘many commandments,’ ‘admit of no reparation,’ often involve various other aggravations (WLC 151); and have devastating and life-long effects on victims (2 Samuel 13:1–22).”
Is there a psychologizing of sin in this overture, especially in II.2 above, as has been suggested by Mr. Myers? The desire of Overture 2 is very plainly to identify abuse as sin and to deal with it biblically. There is no hint of separating abuse from sin. Mr. Myers’s article states, “There seems to be a movement in the church seeking to dislocate abuse from the category of sin.” Overture 2 seeks to deal with abuse as the sin that it is and nothing less.
We should not allow a justified opposition to our culture’s concern about micro-aggression to blind us to the real suffering that God’s people undergo in our fallen world — sometimes even at the hands of those who should be protecting them.
Ground 3 of Overture 2“It is the responsibility of the elders of Christ’s Church to exercise their authority, jointly and severally, to shepherd those under their care by guarding against such sinful behavior; to care for those victimized by the sins of others; and to exercise judicial discipline for such sins in terms of the goals expressed in Book of Discipline I.3.”
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.
Ground 4 of Overture 2“Giving careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse will help us recognize and remedy gaps in our theology and practice in order that we might more effectively minister to victims of abuse with the hope and consolation of the gospel and more readily confront perpetrators of abuse with the need for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.”
Are we not to bear the burdens of others? The multiple trials, complaints, and appeals in our assemblies are humbling. Are we informing our consciences with the study of these questions in the light of Scripture? Do we have a sense of rightness that exposes any self-righteousness? We need to discuss these issues in our judicatories to make us aware of the dangers of sin. It needs to be done in a brotherly and loving way without intensity and anger blasting those with whom we disagree and whom we shepherd. Good procedures are a blessing but they are not the purpose of our existence and they are not the gospel. Our imperfections reflected by the issues raised in Overture 2 deserve to be heard in our prayers of confession each Lord’s Day. Where we have fallen short in understanding the complexities and consequences of abuse, we need the assistance of Overture 2 to help us seek to recognize abuse and help those who are the oppressed, the wounded, and the traumatized.
As Rachael Denhollander suggests in a tweet, we need to give “…careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse….” There are “…incredibly important dynamics to understand with abuse, especially the way abusers wield the trauma they have caused, and the victim’s self-defense to flip the narrative.” There is much about abuse that we do not recognize as fully as we should. We need to be humble and take these things to heart!
ConclusionMuch of the material in this article is gleaned from the minutes of the General Assembly. I did not take time to go through the PSE minutes to document this. Since the issues were given their final appeal at GA and final decisions were made by GA, I thought it best to look at the record from the settled outcome. The most painful reflection that ought to be pursued is not addressed in this paper: do the fissures in the PSE still exist? What is being done to heal the wounds? Answering that goes beyond what I am writing here, but is important to note.
Overture 2 still provides a thorough look at what we need to be learning and thinking about. The Overture remains available for any presbytery, session, individual, or group to use. Although the mandate of the committee has been narrowed, the ideas do not need to be shelved. The real-life questions and stories remain. The PCA has recently completed its own report on the subject of abuse. Both the OPC and the PCA studies will supply some help but both are unduly limited in their approach. Overture 2 is certainly the boldest and best path.
Glenn D Jerrell is a Retired Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC); he is living in Knoxville, Tenn.
Related Posts:

What Schaeffer wrote there nearly 40 years ago was prophetic in nature. But as is so often the case, such prophetic words are ignored and rejected. As we look around the West today we see the sad fulfilment of what he had warned against.

On May 15, 1984, the great evangelical thinker, Presbyterian pastor, and noted apologist Francis Schaeffer passed away. Just a few months earlier his last book was released: The Great Evangelical Disaster (Crossway). Anyone who is familiar with his life and work knows that this volume very much followed in the same vein as his previous 21 books.
It continued the basic themes he had always preached on and written about, which include: an infinite personal God exists; he has revealed himself to us; Scripture is his inspired and infallible word; we can come to this holy God based on the finished work of Christ; Christians are called to model the truth and beauty of God in our relations with others, and the church must refuse to compromise and accommodate with the surrounding culture.
His final book certainly hammers home these key truths. In the dedication page he says the following:
To a new, young generation—and to those in the older generation—who will stand and be countedas radicals for truth and for Christ.
That is emphasised throughout this crucial volume. Plenty of quotes could be offered here. Let me feature just a few. On pages 31-32 he speaks about how utterly important all this is, and what a massive war we are in:
Make no mistake. We as Bible-believing evangelical Christians are locked in a battle. This is not a friendly gentleman’s discussion. It is a life and death conflict between the spiritual hosts of wickedness and those who claim the name of Christ. It is a conflict on the level of ideas between two fundamentally opposed views of truth and reality. It is a conflict on the level of actions between a complete moral perversion and chaos and God’s absolutes. But do we really believe that we are in a life and death battle? Do we really believe that the part we play in the battle has consequences for whether or not men and women will spend eternity in hell? Or whether or not in this life people will live with meaning or meaninglessness? Or whether or not those who do live will live in a climate of moral perversion and degradation? Sadly, we must say that very few in the evangelical world have acted as if these things are true. Rather than trumpet our accomplishments and revel in our growing numbers, it would be closer to the truth to admit that our response has been a disaster.
And on pages 48-49 he warns about which way we will go: with humanistic relativism or God’s absolutes:
Soft days for evangelical Christians are past, and only a strong view of Scripture is sufficient to withstand the pressure of an all-pervasive culture built upon relativism and relativistic thinking. We must remember that it was a strong view of the absolutes which the infinite-personal God gave to the early church in the Old Testament, in the revelation of Christ through the Incarnation, and in the then growing New Testament — absolutes which enabled the early church to withstand the pressure of the Roman Empire. Without a strong commitment to God’s absolutes, the early church could never have remained faithful in the face of the constant Roman harassment and persecution. And our situation today is remarkably similar as our own legal, moral, and social structure is based on an increasingly anti-Christian, secularist consensus.
On page 60 he discusses what happens when cultural infiltration saps the strength and vitality of the church. Everything that we have now experienced – including the evangelical acceptance of homosexuality and fake marriage, was all foreseen by Schaeffer:

Your conscience must be ruled by God’s Word regardless of how many vaccines you’ve received or masks you wear. If we were facing a future in which the government would require everyone not to be vaccinated and never to wear a medical mask in public, then I would say the same thing. If we were facing a future in which churches were requiring people to leave if they had been vaccinated or were wearing a medical mask, I would say the same thing. That’s not a likely future, so I say this instead: the unvaccinated, too, can be saved. They may come into the church of God. They may receive the Word and the Supper of Christ. Our churches are open to the vaccinated and to the unvaccinated.

Soon the churches will be thronged or at least fuller than usual. As the people come into a sanctuary familiar or a little unfamiliar to them, ask yourself a few questions. What is the vaccination status of those people shuffling into unfamiliar pews? Have the college kids back in a church for the first time in months received their booster shots? Do these questions seem silly to you?
They aren’t silly to many, including governments in Europe and Canada, not even to our own federal government, which speaks to the unvaccinated as if they are a class of demons destined to torture and to be tortured while the righteous vaccinated shall persevere through every trial. Such questions already shape policy in German Lutheran congregations now requiring one’s Covid-19 status to determine entry into the house of God (a policy commonly called 3G abbreviating the German words for “recovered,” “vaccinated,” and “tested”). That policy is recommended by the government and required by some congregations, here for example. Easily and swiftly what is said in media broadcasts becomes required in churches. There is no time to ask whether Romans 13 means that everything someone in government says or proposes is constitutional. There is no time to ask whether the church must regulate its worship according to governmental dictate, as if the three young men’s worship should have been to the golden statue Nebuchadnezzar had commanded them to worship instead of to the true God. There is no time to distinguish between what is legal (abortion, for example) and what is godly (not committing murder). Conscience has no time to ponder or to compare the dictates with Scripture. Compliance is required now.
The invasion of everyone’s conscience by governmental and media pronouncements is not a matter for the church’s silence. If I am silent on something affecting people’s understanding of how daily life functions, what will I choose to discuss instead? Luther’s protest against indulgences mattered not because it was the hottest topic of medieval academic theology but because it impinged on what Christians did with their lives. The church cannot let her people’s lives and hearts be determined by everything except God’s Word.
We have perhaps been silent on practically all matters of everyday life except abortion because to speak about the required HR training in diversity that means our people’s tacit assent to transsexual ideology or about the incessant consumption of social media and news that sets everyone’s teeth and tempers on edge would be “too political” from the pulpit. But our consciences have all been informed therefore largely by educational history and media consumption, largely by Fox or CNN or MSNBC, largely by Apple News or Breitbart. The Word of God did not change in the past two years. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are still divine institutions. We are still encouraged to meet together, not neglecting to do so, as is the habit of some. God’s Word did not change between January 2020 and January 2022. What our phones and TVs told us changed, so we changed.
In the past two years the divisions that have opened up in our churches were therefore predictable. We often broke sharply along the lines of media consumption with vastly differing perceptions of what was true, what was worthwhile, what was good. This has created clean breaks in what were once small fissures in the body of Christ. These divisions have deepened with the media portrayal of dissent from official Covid-19 policies as “selfish,” which some Christians have explained to themselves as “not keeping the Fifth Commandment” if you are not (as time has gone on and media messaging has changed) not masked if you’re not sick, then masked, then double-vaccinated, now perhaps boosted.
Read More