PASSING OVERTURE 15

Reed DePace, TE
Pastor, First Pres Montgomery, AL
August 29, 2022

A fellow PCA elder, a brother in Christ whom I am indeed grateful for, asked for my reaction to some arguments he was going to make before his session, urging them at their upcoming presbytery meeting to vote against Overture 15. In keeping with the best of biblical (i.e., presbyterian) practice, he asked for the reactions of someone he knows would most likely be opposed to his reasoning. (Well done, brother, well done.)

PCA presbyteries are now taking up this overture, with the first one to vote on it passing it (8/27/22, Central Carolina, 41-11-1). O15 is considered a long shot for receiving the two-thirds majority yes votes from our presbyteries. Accordingly, appreciating this brother’s integrity, and disagreeing with his reasoning for a “no” vote on O15, I thought I might edit my comments to him, and post them for consideration by others. My goal (as a faith-exercise of my calling as an officer in the PCA) is to see the Spirit use these admittedly imperfect arguments to persuade other PCA elders to support O15’s passage.

Here is O15, as passed by the PCA 49th GA (Birmingham Al, ’22):

“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 want to offer two arguments for why this overture should be passed:

1) It avoids the identity language equivocation trap, and

2) It provides a simple and straightforward way of applying the above reproach standard.

The Equivocation Trap

Almost all the arguments I’ve seen against O15 anchor themselves on a reason for the failure of overtures 23 and 37 from the previous GA (48th, St. Louis). The main argument against them (persuasive in about forty percent of our presbyteries) was that the language of identity was problematic. Particularly, they noted that the teaching elder exemplar in view (i.e., the “poster child” prompting these overtures, no denigration intended) maintains that in his use of identity language (e.g., a homosexual pastor, a Christian who struggles with same-sex attraction as much as he did the first day he was saved) is nothing more than apologetic-ordered language intended to help in ministering to those struggling with the sins of same-sex attraction. The opponents to these overtures also noted that the TE in question also affirms his agreement with the biblical doctrine of new identity in Christ. The same arguments are being raised against passage of O15: such men are not identifying as homosexuals; instead they are identifying with those struggling with same-sex attraction.

Inside and Outside Definitions

I agree that the exemplar TE’s description of himself in terms of a believer who struggles with homosexuality fits both the inside and outside the PCA. He is able to do so not because he uses the same description inside that he does outside. Instead, he is able to do so because he uses the post-modern technique of equivocation. In the most egregious examples, this brother uses the same language inside and outside, qualifying his usage with descriptions fitted to each context’s own meaning of identity. This is equivocation. Using this technique, this brother can use self-descriptive language as a same-sex attracted pastor, in two diametrically opposed contexts, and affirm that he is consistent with the doctrine of both.

The Equivocation Trap

To push this a bit more, consider the self-description this brother offers in both contexts. His inside self-description as a homosexual pastor is more or less consistent with the Bible (as summarized in the Westminster Standards). The brother maintains he is merely “identifying” himself with besetting sins that he nevertheless biblically describes and seeks to biblically deal with.

In this brother’s outside self-identification, both in the context of his local PCA church ministry and his broader (at-large) ministry within the public sphere, he adopts the language AND the reasoning of the culture’s understanding of such identification. In this, the contemporary public realm, his identification is entirely infused with ontological (nature of being) considerations. When dinged by some of his fellow PCA officers for this blatantly anti-gospel identification, he switches from the outside explanation to the inside one. That is he equivocates, and the unprepared are snagged by the trap.

In short, he affirms that he is not identifying with his sin in such a way that it contradicts his affirmation of faith in Christ. Nevertheless, he affirms the culture’s understanding of identity, namely that such characteristics are of the essence of the person’s sense of self, characteristics that cannot be removed from the person without threatening the person’s very existence.

Avoid the Trap

This is the essence of the equivocation trap that, in hindsight, appears to have snagged GA48’s overtures 23 and 37. In simple terms, enough elders missed the descriptive identity equivocation such that they voted “no” on these overtures. They heard him affirm his belief in the biblical doctrine of ontological identity in Christ. But they missed that he also affirmed the (unbelieving) broader culture’s doctrine of ontological identity in one’s sins, a belief that is fundamentally an avowed, implacable, and unappeasable gospel-killing enemy. Being snagged in this trap led some to vote against overtures 23 and 37.

I suspect that some elders may again miss this equivocation trap. Reading GA49’s O15 as nothing more than a boiled down version of GA48’s overtures 23 and 37, they may vote “no” on O15. But, recognizing that equivocation is being used, we can avoid this trap, and vote in favor of O15.

The Above Reproach Standard

It seems to me that reckoning with the equivocation trap should be enough to persuade elders to vote for O15. Yet, there is even a better reason to pass O15. Remember that this year’s overtures committee tweaked the originating presbytery’s original language. Specifically, the OC replaced identity language with description language. While not knowing all the reasons behind this tweak, I grow increasingly persuaded that it is providentially fortuitous.

Description Broader the Identification

Many vocal opponents of O15 argue as if “identifies” is synonymous with “describes.” But that is simply not the case. To be sure, the description language encompasses the identity language. Yet the description language is broader, allowing further considerations to come into view. (A key one for me is the increasingly clear flaws in this brother’s understanding and practice of sanctification. See the recent book review of Still Time to Care, by our brothers in Ascension Presbytery: https://1ar.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/08/Ascension-2022-July-Report-of-AIC-Still-Time-to-Care.pdf).

Avoiding Measurement Weeds

Even more fundamentally, the description language in O15 pushes this whole question (if/when is a man with same-sex attraction qualified to hold office in Christ’s church?) back into the only clear biblical qualification assessment point, namely the question of whether/when such a man is above reproach. Debates over “what does identification really mean anyway?” push this question into the weeds where only worldly considerations apply. Even the otherwise helpful debates over the nature of same-sex desire and when it becomes an actionable sin are responded to with broader evangelical (re: Arminian, self-powered) measurement questions of when is same-sex attraction a problem: how much same-sex desire is allowable; how do we measure this: quantity of events, degree of intensity, frequency of presence, etc.?

The tweaked O15 description language denies all these measuring weeds. For men equipped with the keys to some of the most sacredly precious positions in the Kingdom of Christ, O15 simplifies the decision-making on our version of the broader homosexual clergy question. Is the man describing himself (present tense) as a homosexual, all equivocations aside? If so, as this means he is NOT above reproach, we can be sure that the Spirit has not called him to sacred office in the Church.

The Simple Self-Description

Think about this from the opposite perspective. Imagine you’re examining a man coming for ordination, or one seeking to transfer into your presbytery. In his paperwork submitted for the process, he notes issues of same-sex attraction in his life. Consider what we’d want to hear from him. We do not want some convoluted explanation that seems more wrapped up in the world’s ontological realities than in the gospel’s. This man needs to feed the sheep, correct the sheep, shelter the sheep, protect the sheep, and equip the sheep with the gospel weapons of spiritual warfare in an increasingly re-Sodomizing and Gomorrahizing land.

Instead of confusing language that compels us to spend time (years now) asking whether this is a problem or not, imagine that the brother offered simple and clear expressions describing himself and the remnants of his same-sex attraction in this manner: “No, I’m not a homosexual, nor am I describable by my former lusts to which I was enslaved. To be sure, the old man, who revelingly wallowed in those cesspools of the soul, is still zombie-like scratching at the coffin lid that Jesus has bolted him shut in. But no, I’m not a homosexual. I’m not rightly described by my former same-sex attraction lusts, if even only the lingering memory of them. I am a new man in Christ; the old is gone.”

I think we would all agree that it is this simple: a man needs to see and express that his same-sex attraction was properly descriptive of his former self, before regeneration. He now needs to see and express that his same-sex attraction is effectively dead, not as in not present, but so dormant that even the mildest and most infrequent of stirrings are met with a vigorous resort to Spirit-based mortification. This needs to be so much the man’s experience, that, knowing that unbelief always presents the equivocation trap, he wisely refuses to engage in the use of this technique.

Let’s Pass Overture 15

To be sure, the Enemy will continue to attack us, offering further equivocations that some of us may get tripped up by. But, at least at this point in the battle, until Christ’s already victory is realized once and for all, O15 makes it simple for us to make such judgment calls.

Fathers and brothers, let’s pass Overture 15.

Reed DePace, TE
Pastor, First Pres Montgomery, AL

More Than Meeting Our Connection

posted by R. Fowler White

The excesses of the Great Awakening appealed to those who lived for emotional highs. Arguably, that appeal has mutated and grown over generations into a degrading decline of the visible church. What do I mean?

It seems that lots of folks still look at church as a place to go to satisfy their desire for a weekly high, and we gravitate to speakers who get us or keep us inspired or motivated. Don’t get me wrong: inspiration and motivation are not bad, unless the inspiring and motivating content sounds like little more than a fix to get or stay high. What I mean is that it’s arguable that, especially since the 1960s, the fix being sought and offered has become linked with maintaining either or both of two emotional states. There’s the high of what has been called personal peace, an anxiety-free state in which “I’m ok” is combined with “It’ll all be ok.” But there’s also the high of what we could identify as constant outrage, an anger-stoked state in which “I’m ok but you’re not if we disagree on anything.” It seems useful, then, to listen to folks to learn why they come to our church gatherings, if and when they come at all. Do they come to recharge or alter their emotional state?

To be sure, not everyone gathers at our churches to satisfy these desires. There are certainly listeners and speakers who have determined to do something different. They’ve carefully chosen to make sure that the whole of their souls is engaged: that is, for our purposes, they’ve recognized the need to have their mind, affections, and will addressed. In fact, they’ve also been careful to see that the will and the affections are engaged through the mind. Whether hearers or speakers, they never bypass the mind; the whole soul is engaged.

Now, of course, we might ask, what is the effect of deliberately taking a detour around the mind? When we take a shortcut around the mind to appeal directly to the emotions and the will, what happens? Well, in a manner of speaking, the excesses of the Great Awakening happen. More specifically, that detour creates souls that are unhealthy and weak, unable to withstand winds of deception and error, even disabled from resisting waves of temptation. It’s like trying to get to adulthood by living only on pablum and baby formula instead of solid food. Maturing to adulthood requires a diet of solid food, so that we develop the capacities to recognize, desire, and choose what’s true, right, and good. Spiritual adulthood won’t happen any other way.

So, I ask myself, am I shaped by the conviction that I must (note: must) do something other than stay free of anxiety or stoked on anger, do something other than alter my emotional state? Do I have ears to hear speakers whom God uses to renew, transform, sanctify—dare I say, change—me by engaging my whole soul? Is my church seeking to placate, defend, or attract people who are seeking only to recharge or alter their emotional state? If we ask why our churches would do this, conceivably, it’s because they’ve slipped into conceiving of a local church as little more than a commercial enterprise. We can hear it in words like, “We’ve got to make sure that those in the pews are satisfied with the product we’re making available. After all, it’s the only way to achieve and maintain the critical mass of attendance and giving that’ll pay the bills and keep us open.” Arguably, such sentiments reveal that we’re still in the grip of, even addicted to, the excesses of the Great Awakening. “Church” has become degraded into a connection that sells folks a weekly fix, whether it gives them personal peace or stokes their outrage.

If our churches would gather and grow the saints, however, we have to do better, particularly in these evil days. Scripture offers a different vision of our church gatherings, doesn’t it? It’s more than meeting our churchly connection to get our weekly fix to sustain our anxiety-free or anger-stoked emotional state. Scripture offers a truly inspiring, motivating vision of renewal, growth, and edification. Converted as we are through hearing the elementary truths of the gospel, we gather to get our beliefs and behaviors in order according to the whole counsel of God. We gather to get transformed—even re-formed—with new habits of holiness, the better to know God and His will, to hear God’s gospel of forgiveness proclaimed, and to hear His law of love declared and applied to family, church, workplace, and society. Sign me up.

Taking Hell Seriously

posted by R. Fowler White

What does the Bible teach its readers about hell? It’s a very important topic, but it’s also a very uncomfortable topic. We may respond with fear. If we’re not Christians, we should respond with fear. But my prayer is that God will replace fear with faith in our Lord Jesus, God’s incarnate Son who saves sinners from hell. If we are Christians, let’s join together to praise God for Jesus who came from heaven to save us from hell.

So, let’s recall why it’s very important that we take seriously what the Bible says about hell. Why? Because the Bible is the revelation of God’s will to man; it’s the documented word of the only living and true God, the standard for what we’re to believe and how we’re to behave. Do we believe, then, what the Bible teaches about hell? We better, because what the Bible says, God says.

What, then, does the Bible mean when it speaks of hell? That is, what does God mean by hell? He means the punishments for sin in the life to come. He doesn’t mean the punishments for sin in this life, the miseries of suffering and death that we experience now because we’re sinners. No, He refers to the punishments for sin after we die, before we’re resurrected, and after we’re resurrected. If we know ourselves to be sinners, we must take seriously what God says about hell in the Bible. So, what does He say? Let’s summarize.

First, hell is a place more frightful than we can imagine. The Bible gives us many very graphic descriptions of hell. Each image, by itself, is terrifying enough, but the combination of images is even more horrifying than we can imagine. It’s a place of utter darkness (Jude 13), a place of outer darkness where weeping and gnashing of teeth are all that will be heard (Matt 8:12). It’s the lake that burns with fire and sulfur (Rev 21:8), a prison of eternal chains from which there is no hope of release (Jude 6), a fiery furnace of torment where the fire is not quenched, a place of misery where the worm does not die (Mark 9:28). The suffering in hell is beyond all comparison to the suffering experienced in this world. It’s a reality more frightful than any one of the Bible’s images for it. In other words, hell is worse than we can ever imagine.

Second, hell is a place where God is present. Yes, God is present in hell. We’re not to think of hell as a place from which God is absent. It’s not a place where sinners are forever separated from God. No, hell is a place where sinners are forever separated from God’s comforting presence. God is present in hell in His holy wrath and just punishment. The punishments of sin in the world to come will include everlasting separation from God’s comfort, but not from God’s wrath. The punishments there will be beyond the most grievous of suffering imaginable and will occur without interruption. So, don’t make the mistake of thinking that hell is a place from which God is absent. God is now and will be present in hell in His holy wrath and just punishment, and, as a result, hell is a place more frightful than we can imagine.

Third, hell is a place of God’s perfect justice. We’re not to think that hell is a place of “cruel and unusual” punishment. The only living and true God always does what is right. He always pays His creatures the wages that are due to them. He always rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient. The punishments for sin in hell, then, are neither cruel nor unusual. No, they’re thoroughly just. As the place of God’s perfect justice against disobedience, then, hell is worse than we can ever imagine.

Fourth, hell is a place of eternal punishment. It’s not a place of temporary punishment. The torments of hell are everlasting. Suffering there will never come to an end. Some say that the miseries of hell do come to an end. They declare that unbelievers are annihilated, that they cease to exist. But Jesus teaches otherwise. In Matt 25:31-46, for example, Jesus teaches us about the Day of Judgment, that Day when He will appear as Judge of all the world. In His teaching, He speaks of two futures, one for the sheep, another for the goats. We should notice that, according to Jesus, both futures are eternal. The sheep will enter into life that is eternal. The goats will go away into punishment that is eternal. Clearly, the agonies of hell will last as long as the joys of heaven. Clearly, though heaven is a place of pleasures forevermore (Ps 16:11), hell is a place of unremitting pain. Thus, as a place of God’s perfect justice and holy wrath, hell is a place more frightful than we can ever imagine.

Fifth, consider the person in the Bible who teaches us the most about hell. Who is that person? It’s not Moses or one of the OT prophets after him. It’s not Paul, Peter, or John. It’s none other than Jesus. It is He who teaches us that hell is a place of eternal punishment and perfect justice, a place where God is present in His holy wrath. The Bible tells us that Jesus will come again as our Judge on the last day. We do well, therefore, to listen to all that Jesus teaches about hell. And we do well to learn that it’s a place worse than we can ever imagine.

Does the truth about hell horrify us? Does it terrify us? If we know ourselves to be sinners, it should terrify and horrify us. This truth should cause us to seek a place to hide, a way of escape. The good news is that God Himself has provided the place for us to hide, the way of escape for us. That place to hide is in Jesus. That way of escape  is through Jesus. How can this be? Because our Lord Jesus Christ died as God’s substitute for sinners. God poured out His holy wrath on Jesus; He inflicted His just punishments on the body and soul of Jesus. Jesus, then, endured the anguish and agony, the terror and torment of hell for sinners. As a result, our Lord Jesus Christ satisfied the perfect justice and holy wrath of God against any and all sinners who will trust in Him alone.

Friends, hell is worse than anything we can imagine. But in Jesus we find the place to hide from hell. Through Jesus we find the way of escape from hell. It is He who saves us from hell. It is He who gives us the assurance of eternal life. We’re to trust in Christ Jesus alone. We must rest on the Lord Christ alone. Our only hope, our only boast is in Him, now and forever.