Note: the following is an excerpt from an email that I sent my church on February 11, 2022. This was just before Overtures 23 and 37 failed to receive the needed votes in order to pass. I am posting it now ahead of the PCA’s General Assembly next week (June 21-24) because it provides important context and links to positions for and against the failed overtures. No doubt this topic will be discussed at GA and for those just now coming into the conversation, I felt this email might help frame things ahead of GA (especially the links provided).
About 5% of my work over the course of a year is given to denominational work. We are members of the Presbyterian Church in America (the PCA). As the name implies, we follow a presbyterian form of church government. Each church is connected to churches in a region. The elders ("presbuteros" in Greek) from these churches form the presbytery. Our presbytery is called Hills and Plains (it includes churches from NW Arkansas, Oklahoma, and SW Missouri). There are around 90 presbyteries in the PCA.
One question our denomination (like every denomination) is wrestling with relates to human sexuality. Our denomination universally embraces the historic, traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality: marriage is between one man and one woman and sex should only occur in the context of marriage. Though our sinful instincts may resist this view, the Christian understanding of human sexuality is best for flourishing communities and children especially.
The PCA developed a helpful report outlining human sexuality giving special attention to homosexuality. It's a well-written document. You can read it HERE (and if you'd like a companion video to the report, you can see Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung's commentary on the report HERE.).
Our denomination is considering two additions or overtures (click HERE to learn more about the overtures) to the Book of Church Order related to the question of homosexuality and those struggling with same-sex attraction. It seems our denomination is nearly split on these additions. I am against the proposed additions and will be speaking against them tomorrow morning before the presbytery. Following a debate style presentation, our presbytery will vote whether to add these additions or not.
There's plenty of background to all this and in an attempt to avoid overloading this email, I will simply point you in the direction of articles and resources for reading up on it, if you so wish.
Jon Payne provides a case for the overtures HERE.
David Coffin provides a case against the overtures HERE.
As I said, I am with David Coffin on this one. Put simply, the overtures are unclear and redundant (and therefore unnecessary). The Scriptures and the Westminster standards (see Q139 of the larger catechism, for example) are clear that homosexuality (among many other sexual sins) is a sinful departure from God’s design and plan for humans. I do not believe the BCO needs this added language, especially since the language’s interpretation is currently contested.