Third, this is a persistent issue. There have been efforts to address this issue such as the recently affirmed human sexuality report. We do have our helpful standards in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Some contend this is adequate and no more needs to be said, especially the proposed amendments. But help me if I am missing something (I am the new guy) but apparently these resources are not sufficient for the very fact that the issue persists.

Through the years I always sought the impressions of new guests to my church. Not that the opinion of a longtime member was insignificant, but it was the fresh eyes of new people who saw things others somehow didn’t notice or always appreciate. So as a newcomer to the PCA I thought my impressions might be of value to some as we enter the home stretch of voting on overtures 23 and 37. Now I should point out I am not a newcomer to pastoral ministry. I am a seasoned (that’s code for old guy) pastor from several denominational backgrounds.

So the first thing that strikes me is this, a real issue has presented itself. That may seem too obvious to bother mentioning, but the point is these overtures are not hypothetical or arbitrary. Rather, they are responding to real life circumstances. Real people are really advocating for a position that involves embracing one’s ongoing identity as gay and a potential officer of the church.

The framers and defenders of the proposed overtures did not go on a hunt into people’s private lives to find these issues. I am sure they would much rather focus on other pressing matters of life and ministry. It is not unkind or uncharitable, therefore, to support these overtures that seek to provide clarity in response to this real-life issue.

Second, this is a complicated issue. The concern that the wording of the proposed overtures is complicated and introduces new language to the standards of the church should not be alarming. The presenting issue is complicated. And again, this issue was not chosen by the framers or defenders of the overtures. It was chosen by these who are supporting such a novel and complicated position.

If a secular court has to deal with a malpractice suit involving brain surgery, they cannot complain that it is complicated. Brain surgery is complicated. Likewise, human identity and sexuality are complicated. If the church courts are forced to struggle with handling complicated and novel issues like human identity there is no one to thank but those suggesting the position in which we find ourselves. Therefore, no one should vote against the proposed overtures simply on the grounds that they are complicated or deal with new vocabulary.

Third, this is a persistent issue. There have been efforts to address this issue such as the recently affirmed human sexuality report. We do have our helpful standards in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Some contend this is adequate and no more needs to be said, especially the proposed amendments. But help me if I am missing something (I am the new guy) but apparently these resources are not sufficient for the very fact that the issue persists.

It would be unnecessary to add specific cases to our constitution if it was sufficient to handle the real issue before us. But obviously something more is needed. And there are times when the constitution needs to be amended to make plain the will of the body. Therefore, no one should vote against the proposed overtures on the grounds that they are unnecessary.

And finally, it is an urgent issue. In a recent men’s Bible study at our young church plant the issue of the overtures and the position of “side B Christianity” came up. (Trust me, I was not the one who mentioned it.) Men were immediately alarmed and confused. They wanted to know how long this had been going on. I mentioned a couple years. What is being done? they wanted to know. I tried to explain the difference between the court cases and the proposed overtures. I tried to explain how the system of Presbyterian government works (or is supposed to work).

From the looks and comments that night, I am not sure our church plant will survive if these overtures are not passed, or some definitive action is taken to make clear it is not okay to be an officer of the church and embrace the identity of a gay Christian. But we’re a small bunch and this is not a threat. The point is I have been down this road before. As the pastor of a large church in the PCUSA, I saw the same look in people’s eyes. I heard the same questions and frustrations. I found myself saying the same hollow words- “It’s not exactly what it sounds like.” “We can make a difference.” “This doesn’t reflect who we are as a church.” You know how well that turned out.

Coming into the PCA I was aware there was a diversity of views and even movements within the denomination. But I also saw a denomination that had exciting prospects to fulfill an essential mission. I also strongly believed (and still do) that the vast majority of people within the denomination would not support the position of an officer of the church embracing an ongoing identity as a gay Christian. And while I have learned that people can appreciate debate and due process, they won’t endure protracted procedures that yield mixed messages, or when a system cannot accomplish what is the apparent intent of the constitution and the will of the body.

I have learned that people leave churches like churches leave denominations. Some in groups, some as individuals. Some leave in a huff, some quietly, still others may stay but don’t engage. We should be very concerned about the moment in which we find ourselves.

It is time to address this. If you feel it is appropriate at this moment in our denomination to allow for officers of the church to embrace the identity of a gay Christian, then vote against the overtures. Let me simply ask that you begin your comments whether in formal debates, in social media, or in any other venue with the fact that you do feel this is a viable position and you embrace it. And let me ask that you are forthcoming with your congregation and let them know your position as well. Don’t be like the many pastors and elders I have seen through the years who mislead their flock as to their views and positions.

If you feel this is not the right position for our denomination to be known for (and I can tell you from experience we will be known for it) or the position that allows us to fulfill our mission, but you still have some reservations about the specific overtures, please reflect on the fact that this is indeed an urgent and persistent issue that though by nature complicated, needs to be addressed. Even if you feel the proposed overtures are less than perfect, that is not a reason to vote against them.

It is not the lack of clarity of an overture or the uncertainty of its imagined outcome that we should be most concerned about, but the emerging lack of clarity about who are as a denomination and the uncertainty we will have in fulfilling our mission if these overtures do not pass that should most concern us.

Alan Hager is a member of New River Presbytery and the Organizing Pastor of Grace Church in Buckhannon, WV.