(Note: The PCA’s General Assembly passed Overture 15, which would be added to chapter 7 of the Book of Church Order (BCO). The Overture is now before presbyteries, requiring a 2/3 vote to pass. Below are three reasons why I plan to vote against the Overture.)
Overture 15 reads:
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.
I am opposed to Overture 15 for three reasons. The Overture is unclear, conflicts with the widely-agreed upon AIC Study Committee Report on Human Sexuality, and short circuits our call to exercise pastoral care and wisdom when considering office holders in the PCA.
Reason #1: Overture 15 Is Unclear
Overture 15 clouds rather than clarifies the issue it seeks to address. One commissioner exposed the ambiguity with a simple question. He inquired:
I am curious how the authors interpret the words “men who describe themselves as homosexual” in 7-4. Would this prohibit men who experience same-sex attraction from candidacy regardless of whether they identify, celebrate, or promote their sinful attractions? Or is the word “describe” being used synonymously with “identify”?
The minority chairman answered:
I will tell you what my view and my understanding of the language is and what I believe that of the minority is… It is my view that this language… would not serve to disqualify a man who merely experiences same-sex attraction. The question is: someone who says, “I am a homosexual,” or, “I’m gay,” would be prohibited. I think it’s a question of how you relate to your same-sex attraction. Someone who has repented of same-sex attraction, who has denied it, who is seeking to mortify it and does not claim it as a way to describe himself is the difference.
The minority chairman continued by explaining that the language of “describe” was selected because of confusion surrounding “identity” language. While I agree that identity language is problematic (for the reasons the minority chair explained), it seems to me “describe” is even more confusing. For example, a person can describe themselves in terms of ongoing sins and struggles at times, but if such a description is subordinate to their self-understanding as Christian, then it is not only allowable but biblical (E.g., Paul describing himself as chief of sinners in Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:15).
What if a presbytery takes a different interpretation than the view of the minority chair? What if a presbytery understands the “describe themselves as homosexual” language to refer to anyone who recognizes the experience of same-sex attraction? There is nothing to keep one from interpreting the language in that way. The fuzziness around the term “describe” poses problems for consistent implementation and could be interpreted in such a way that any admitted experience of same-sex attraction would be grounds for disqualification from ministry. This interpretation of Overture 15 would have a chilling effect that could encourage concealment, not confession, of sin.
Reason #2: Overture 15 Conflicts with AIC Report
Not only is the language of Overture 15 unclear, it also conflicts with the AIC Study Report on Human Sexuality.
The Study Report says:
In practical and plain terms, the issue of terminology is more likely a matter for shepherding in wisdom, and not in and of itself grounds for discipline.
The Study Report recognizes a “range” of meanings for terms “like gay and gay Christian” (and we might add “homosexual”). The report notes that the usage of these terms is a “matter for shepherding in wisdom.” Perhaps in certain circumstances describing oneself as a homosexual or gay Christian is grounds for discipline or disqualification from office (while the Study Report is concerned with any Christian using such labels, the ordinand or ordained pastor is certainly included as well). But the Study Report correctly recognizes the complexity of such terms and their usage, and invites pastors into a more difficult but loving process of exercising wisdom and leadership. Whereas the AIC Study Report correctly notes the complexity and range of terms and invites pastors to wade in with wisdom, Overture 15 seeks to deal with the complexity in a span of 3-4 lines of text (the meaning of which is not entirely clear).
Reason #3: Overture 15 Short Circuits Wisdom
Which leads to the primary reason I am opposed to Overture 15. I realize those in favor of Overture 15 are growing weary of claims that the language of these Overtures is unclear and confusing or that the Overtures conflict with the AIC Study Report. I believe there’s a fundamental point to be gleaned from this.
I spent nearly a decade as an administrator in private Christian schools. Anytime there was a crisis or challenging situation, there would be talk at the board level of crafting handbook language to help guide leadership for similar situations that might arise in the future. I always resisted these proposed additions because the more difficult and complex the situation, the less helpful handbook language would be for handling similar issues in the future.
What those complex situations called for was not the management of policy but something more challenging and taxing: leadership and wisdom (again, “shepherding in wisdom,” as the AIC Report describes it). Some of the most difficult challenges I faced as a school administrator were best dealt with through prayer, reflection, interviews, countless phone calls and meetings, and more prayer. Exhausting work, but exactly what leadership requires. The trend in education (and other spheres) is toward the management of policy and the fruit of this trend are zero-tolerance policies, the kind of policy that suspends (or worse) an elementary student for jokingly pointing a finger in gun-like fashion at a classmate.
For church leaders, the managing policy approach is appealing, for it is a greased track compared to the slower, rocky and arduous path of wise leadership, but leading is what we have been called to do. The management approach doesn’t properly consider the factors that make the difference in these kinds of decisions: an understanding of the context and circumstances and exercising wisdom accordingly. I appreciate the desire for biblical and confessional fidelity that undergirds this Overture, but I worry that drawing our attention to a few lines of text will distract us from the important work of considering context, intent, meaning, and so on. The strength of the BCO is that it guides, but does so generally, asking pastors to do the heavy lifting of shepherding in wisdom. Moreover, the issues at hand regarding human sexuality that Overture 15 seeks to address are too complex for a few lines of text to properly address.
Let’s trust our biblical polity and our ministers to lead in wisdom. The pieces are already in place: we have the Scriptures, the Westminster Standards, and the Study Report, all of which are clear about God’s design for human sexuality, so let’s send forth our ministers to do the hard work of examining office holders with care and wisdom and not short circuit those things.