The debate at GA last year over Overtures 16 and 23 hinged partially on whether men can legitimately use these English expressions as descriptions and not as identifications. That was an interesting, if truncated, debate. But Overture 15 leaves that debate behind and explicitly forbids a man from describing these properties of himself.

[Note: I thank the Editors of The Aquila Report for allowing me to revise this letter. This draft contains some corrections from an earlier published draft.]

Dear Editor:

I believe that Overture 15, passed at the recent General Assembly, contains a number of fatal errors. But one disastrous error in particular should be obvious, uncontroversial, and debate-ending. Joe Gibbons’ July 11 article, “Exploring Overture 15 from the PCA General Assembly”, unfortunately perpetuates this error and provides a catalyst for explaining it. Gibbons uses the concepts of description and identity interchangeably, making it a sin to say the truth about one’s remaining sin.

If we misunderstand and misuse human language, then when God uses human language to communicate with us, we will misunderstand and misuse His words. Again: if we misunderstand and misuse human concepts, then when God uses human concepts to communicate with us, we will misunderstand and misuse His communication.

Where Overture 15 says that, “Men who describe themselves as homosexual…are disqualified from holding office” in the PCA, Gibbons comments that, “‘identity’ language…[here stands] as a synonym with the ‘describes’ language in Overture 15.” But identification is not a synonym of description. This is a substantive misunderstanding and misuse of human language and concepts. The result is that Overture 15 does not forbid any of the things that Gibbons eloquently inveighs against but does forbid things that God commands His people to do.

Gibbons and others in our denomination argue that an officer of the church should not “cherish a homosexual or gay self-conception,” but since cherishing is internal one can do that while refraining from describing oneself as homosexual. They worry that church officers might “envelop themselves in worldly desires and appetites of the flesh,” but a man can do that with his homosexual desires even while refraining from calling himself homosexual. They claim that Christians should not say that homosexual desires are “uniquely descriptive of their lives and are an intrinsic part of their humanity,” but a man could say all of that without calling himself homosexual. As an example, recall the language popular in the previous generation that, ‘I am an ex-gay man who still experiences some same-sex attraction.’ A man who uses only this sort of language could easily satisfy Overture 15 while constantly committing all of the sins and non-sins that Gibbons is worried about.

On the other hand, the only thing that Overture 15 actually forbids is describing oneself as homosexual. To describe some entity is simply to say the truth about one or more properties of that entity. As Scripture, the Westminster Divines, and Mr. Gibbons have noted, all Christians are beset with remaining sin. So, some remaining sin or other will be contained in an accurate self-description uttered by any and every church officer of the PCA. Such description is a constitutive part of confession of sin, which God commands us to do and promises grace to live out His will when such confession is done in the community of His Body (Gal. 6:2; Eph. 4:16; Jas. 5:16). Since this grace comes through confession, we cannot receive this grace without describing our remaining sin.

In the English language, descriptive terms can sometimes appear superficially similar to identity terms. I recently heard a pastor during his sermon comment that, “I am a people-pleaser.” From the context it was clear that he meant this in the common Christian-lingo usage: he has a psychological disposition to seek and value the approval of people more highly than he should. He was describing an aspect of his remaining sin. The English locution of this description sounds on the surface like an identity claim: “I am a people-pleaser.” And it could at times be used in that way.

Similarly, the English locutions “I am homosexual” or “I am a homosexual” are descriptive phrases that signify the presence of a psychological disposition toward primary sexual attraction to the same sex. They sound on the surface like identity claims, and they sometimes might be used that way. Gibbons worries that a church officer may “feel such a strong desire to commit these particular sins daily that he chooses to describe himself by those sinful desires.” True, that could happen. But a church officer, like the pastor I heard, could also truly have a disposition to some remaining sin and yet have mortified it such that it is actually not a strong daily desire in the way that Gibbons worries. A psychological disposition is not constituted by daily near-uncontrollable desire. When Paul said, “O wretched man that I am!” (Rom. 7: 15-24), he described a disposition toward remaining sin that he currently possessed.

Gibbons’ argument seems to be that someone who describes himself as homosexual is thereby “cherishing” or “enveloping” himself in a remaining sin. But if describing one’s remaining sin constitutes cherishing it, then the pastor I heard, any sin-confessing Christian, and the apostle Paul all count as cherishing their sin. That is absurd. But if description could be equated with identification, then this absurdity could be correct. This is why I say above that this error makes it a sin to say the truth about one’s remaining sin.

The debate at GA last year over Overtures 16 and 23 hinged partially on whether men can legitimately use these English expressions as descriptions and not as identifications or cherishings. That was an interesting, if truncated, debate. But Overture 15 leaves that debate behind and explicitly forbids a man from describing these properties of himself.

A question becomes immediately relevant: what if a psychological disposition to primary sexual attraction to men is part of a man’s remaining sin? Is this a disqualification from holding church office? The obvious answer should be “no” (or at least “not necessarily”), since one can of course possess such a disposition while mortifying it according to the concurrently passed Overture 29 (which Gibbons cites approvingly). But should a man also be forbidden from saying the truth about this remaining sin? Should he be forbidden from confessing it and receiving the grace from Christ’s body to bear his burden and so fulfill the Law of Christ? I should think the obvious answer is ‘no,’ but at least we are owed an argument to the contrary. Because saying the truth about this particular remaining sin is precisely what Overture 15 forbids. It is an interesting question whether it is possible to claim “homosexual” as one’s core identity without sinning. But it should not be a question before our denomination whether a man can describe himself as homosexual without sinning. It should be obvious that it is possible for a man to do so.

Surprisingly but accurately, Gibbons makes a point of noting positively that Overture 15 does not forbid a church officer from “experiencing” such a psychological disposition – that is, from being homosexual – but only from saying that he experiences it! The underlying remaining sin of a psychological disposition toward same-sex attraction apparently does not disqualify a man, but the act of confessing that remaining sin does (supposedly) disqualify him. This confusion results from supposing that description and identification can be synonyms.

Gibbons laments the disunity and division that “this issue” has caused in the PCA, but I would suggest that “issues” do not cause disunity: they are abstracta with no causal powers. I suggest that what has caused disunity and division about Overture 15 is people, specifically people misunderstanding and misusing English words and concepts. I think there are some weighty theological differences in the background that deserve to be debated, but the division over Overture 15 is purely linguistic and conceptual. It should be obvious and uncontroversial that Overture 15 contains a grievous linguistic mistake. I plead with Mr. Gibbons and other supporters of Overture 15 to engage in loving, private, and extended dialogue and relationship with those who are worried about Overture 15 and its predecessors. The paucity and lack of such dialogue and relationship well describes the actual cause of our disunity and division.

Luke Kallberg is a member of Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis, MO.