Considering the BCO Amendments on Sexuality, Part 2

The other day some other pastors and I gathered to discuss the amendments. It was a helpful and charitable discussion that went beyond the amendments to our larger concerns about the denomination and the tensions pulling it in opposite directions. We don’t see those same forces at work to the same degree in our presbytery, but we could be wrong.

I thought I would refer to the rationale presented for voting for the amendments. I want to present them fairly, and so they are not straw men I can easily knock down.

Rationale for BCO 16

It was advised that we consider it grammatically by removing the parenthesis to add clarity. Here we are:

16-4. Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity … that undermines or contradicts their identity as new creations in Christ, either by denying the sinfulness of fallen desires (such as, but not limited to, same sex attraction), or by denying the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, or by failing to pursue Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions are not qualified for ordained office.

This helps one to see that an identity undermines or contradicts one’s identity when it meets any one or more of the three criteria given. This means, it was argued, that it offers protection to men experiencing SSA as long as none of these 3 things is true: denying the sinfulness of their desires, denying progressive sanctification, or failing to pursue said sanctification.

It is pretty straight forward.

My Disconnect

I cannot argue with the “exegesis.” I do however sense a grave disconnect. If this actually offers protection to SSA men then why are they generally against this amendment? If this offers protection to SSA men then why are those who find it to be a disqualifying condition in favor of it?

This would mean that both ends of the spectrum are not reading it accurately and fairly (nor am I- though how to interpret those 3 conditions is in the eye of the beholder). Those who find it to be a disqualifying condition read it as though such an identity necessarily violates at least one of the conditions.

Since we can’t agree on what it means and how it is to be applied, I still have reservations about passing it. I don’t want to see this “weaponized” by some presbyteries to be used against candidates or other presbyteries (as we have witnessed in some other cases).

Let’s provide an real life example. Many have expressed that conversion therapy has a very low success rate. My theory, which I have not endeavored to prove, is that those who arrive at SSA through abuse or experimentation are more likely to experience a change of attractions/desires sufficient to sustain a heterosexual marriage while those who have always felt that attraction/desire will not experience a significant/sufficient change of attractions/desires. So, as a result of such a track record some express little/no hope for a change in their attractions, but see progressive sanctification as addressing the mortification of the flesh, making no provision for the flesh and fleeing the evil desires rather than “becoming straight”. Would this view be seen as meeting one or more of the three conditions expressed in the amendment?

As we study human nature we see a proclivity due to our sinful nature to see our opponents in a less positive light. I risk doing that here. If one finds that SSA is a disqualifying condition, then anything that doesn’t sound like total victory can be viewed as meeting the conditions for undermining or contradicting our identity in Christ.

BCO 21-4 (and 24-1)
e. In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potentially notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, fornication, and pornography), addictions, abusive behavior, racism, and financial mismanagement. Careful attention must be given to his practical struggle against sinful actions, as well as to persistent sinful desires. The candidate must give clear testimony of reliance upon his union with Christ and the benefits thereof by the Holy Spirit, depending on this work of grace to make progress over sin (Psalm 103:2-5, Romans 8:29) and to bear fruit (Psalm 1:3; Gal. 5:22-23). While imperfection will remain, he must not be known by reputation or self-profession according to his remaining sinfulness, but rather by the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In order to maintain discretion and protect the honor of the pastoral office, Presbyteries are encouraged to appoint a committee to conduct detailed examinations of these matters and to give prayerful support to candidates.

The brothers viewed this as procedural advice for ordination or credentials committees to examine men on a variety of subjects. It is not intended to provide grounds for disqualification so much as to address areas of inquiry.

As I noted in Part 1, I have fewer objections on this amendment. Other brothers had more strenuous objections focused on “reputation.” Another pastor I know expressed to me that he knew some men with ministries to homosexuals that were concerned whether sharing their own struggle with SSA might be construed as “being known by reputation or self-profession”. This may actual hinder their ministry of evangelism among the gay community.

It seems strange to me that some seem to deny our “remaining sinfulness” but I see men dismayed that a Christian would experience persistent temptations. I don’t want to re-trace the material in Part 1 about our remaining sin from the Westminster Confession. Let’s turn instead to the Heidelberg Catechism to see similar statements.

56. Q. What do you believe concerning the forgiveness of sins?

A. I believe that God, because of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, nor my sinful nature, against which I have to struggle all my life, but He will graciously grant me the righteousness of Christ, that I may never come into condemnation.

We see here in answer 56 that we struggle against our sinful nature, or indwelling sin, all our lives on earth. We don’t reach a point where we no longer need to struggle against it. We continue to experience temptations and actual sins produced by original sin. Our hope in this life is the righteousness of Christ, not our personal righteousness. Apart from this each of us would fall under condemnation. But, praise God, we are united to the Righteous One.

114. Q. But can those converted to God keep these commandments perfectly?

A. No. In this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Nevertheless, with earnest purpose they do begin to live not only according to some but to all the commandments of God.

Our obedience, according to Answer 114 is but only a small beginning in this life. It may look like great progress from our perspective, but compared to God’s absolute standard it is meager indeed. The biblical pattern actually seems to be that our awareness of our sin grows as we mature. As we grow closer to the Light we are able to see the spots on our clothes more readily, and see more of them. This is why Paul called himself “chief of sinners” near the end of his life in 1 Timothy 1. The men we thought most holy saw themselves as ungodly. As I noted in a recent sermon, spiritual vitality is tied to our awareness of sin and repentance, not the absence of temptation. This latter is actually a lack of awareness of our temptations and transgressions.

Bi-vocational pastor Chris Accardy in a blog post points out that this amendment fails to mention our status as mandatory reporters in light of the discussion of childhood sexual abuse. His contention is that we open ourselves to lawsuits since our constitution mentions examining men on this subject without also stressing that this is not merely a moral issue but a legal issue.

The Larger Picture and Possible Consequences

Wisdom includes a concern for unintended consequences for our actions. There will be consequences whether the amendments are passed or not. Both sides of this discussion expressed concerns about trajectories, the idea that our denomination is not static but that we are going from 9.2-9.7 to 9.1-9.8 or farther. Some are concerned rejecting these amendments will move us farther left as a denomination. Others are concerned that passing them moves us farther right.

This all mirrors the larger discussion of evangelical fracturing that we are all seeing in our churches. Many are moving toward neo-fundamentalism and many are moving toward neo-liberalism. It is part of the polarization of American society. To use different terminology more of our people are becoming culture warriors and social justice warriors. My conviction is that we are to be trafficking in the gospel (to borrow from Dick Kauffman) and addressing issues of morality and justice as needed by our texts and their application. We should not be captive to either movement. We want our people to affirm a biblical morality and biblical justice because they have received Christ as He is presented to us in the gospel. He sets our agenda, not cultural movements.

These movements represent the fortress mentality versus the transformationist drive. We can’t remain huddled in our churches, fearful of society. We are to be engaging culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Knowing our sins we should not be angry as we address the sins of culture. But we are also to be addressing the hearts of people, not simply laws. Godly people will seek to make godly laws, and those godly people are only produced by the gospel.

Many of our churches focus on the sins of society and not the sins of the church and Church. I believe our focus should primarily be on our sins and secondarily the sins of our society. We need to be humble, not self-righteous, as we speak of society’s ills. We need to be more concerned about unholiness in the church than godlessness in society. This is not to say we are seeking a “pure” or “regenerate” church. It is not about being perfect but about identifying and mortifying our sin. The majority of us, not simply a minority.

There are also generational concerns at play. Our Stated Clerk, Bryan Chapell talked about this issue in a presentation to stated clerks. We grew up in very different societies that affect how we tend to address cultural issues. While agreeing that abortion is immoral, the older generations focus on changing the law. Younger generations focus on caring for women and their children, as well as adoption. These should supplement one another rather than supplant one another. How they approach the question of homosexuality is different as well. Older generations fear the “gay agenda”. Younger generations lived in a world in which it was normalized and want to care for homosexuals instead of battle them for cultural power. These currents create some of the tensions here. Both sides, I believe, recognize the sinfulness of homosexuality while differing on how to minister to those who are homosexual. Remember, generations are not iron clad. Just because you are in a generation doesn’t mean you think like others in that generation because you were also raised in a family and a church that may reflect other approaches.

If these pass, we may lose churches on one end of the continuum. That end tends to leave to join other denominations. If this doesn’t pass some like Jon Payne have advocated for staying and fighting, though leaving is always a future option. Those who do leave may leave for other denominations. Some may leave loudly and form a new denomination (it is hard to leave quietly when you are inviting others to join you). Sadly there will be loses on either pole of the spectrum and those of us in the “squishy middle” will press on while recognizing that we do, in fact, serve in imperfect churches, presbyteries and denomination. My idealism manifests itself in “why can’t we get along” while other people’s idealism manifests itself in pursuing a more pure context. If we struggle with our sin nature, and everyone else does too, it makes sense that there will be differences both moral and non-moral. I can live with that.

The Tenor of the Controversy

I was quite pleased with the tenor of our discussion. We gave one another space to make their case. We spoke as brothers, not adversaries. There were no accusations, though our fears or concerns included reference to wider audiences. The tenor of those discussions was not so hopeful, charitable and edifying.

The declension in the fruit of the Spirit is disconcerting and disheartening. Thankfully there are men who respond well when how they engage becomes a problem. Others speak like this is the 16th century and their opponent is a Roman bishop defending the Council of Trent. They forget we are brothers, and how we speak to brothers is very different than how one speaks to an enemy of the gospel. Or perhaps that is the point, they consider those who differ with them to be enemies of the gospel. I don’t know, but there are men I choose not to interact with because of how they treat those with whom they disagree.

I’m currently reading Cheer Up! The Life and Ministry of Jack Miller by Michael Graham. I just finished the chapter on the Shepherd Controversy. We see that Shepherd’s concern for easy-believism led him into a novel view of justification similar to how we can express salvation (been saved, being saved, and will be saved). We use those phrases to refer to justification & adoption, sanctification and glorification respectively. His view of final justification seems to have been picked up by Piper, and his covenant faithfulness by the Federal Vision. Shepherd had a point but instead of returning to the gospel he over-corrected. This is similar to the problem of the Marrow Controversy. The answer to antinomianism isn’t legalism or “Lordship Salvation”. The answer for either is the gospel of Jesus Christ. For more on this you should read The Whole Christ by Sinclair Ferguson.

My point is that the sentiments expressed by Miller to Shepherd after the latter had finally been removed from the faculty after a 7 year controversy are similar to mine about this controversy though it is not at the heart of the gospel like that was.

“What strikes me, however, is the common failing we have all shared in. What is the gospel all about? It is the reconciliation of sinners to God through the blood of Christ and the reconciliation of men to one another as the fruit of that reconciliation to God. I believe that is the priority which is on the heart of the Lord- and one that we sadly neglected in our relationships to one another. It must be greatly offensive to the Lord to see us defending the gospel in a manner that puts us at a distance from one another… I fear that we have acted hypocritically as brothers together in debating issues that we know little about as part of our own obedience. … The whole matter makes me sick at heart. I see little honor for Christ in what has happened, and no victors, only mutual shamefacedness.” (Graham, pp. 125)

May we not experience this when it is all said and done.

Hopefully I faithfully represented the views of others. Hopefully I faithfully describe more of the bigger picture tensions that drive our differences. Hopefully men are able think through this more clearly. Hopefully we will act like and remain brothers on the far side.

Advertisement