Overture 15 would not declare the mere presence of homosexual desire to be disqualifying. While there may be a minority within the PCA who would bar anyone from office who confesses unnatural lust, overture 15 would not do that. Overture 15 is narrowly focused on barring from church office any man who describes, characterizes, or defines himself according to his sinful desire.

Words can be confusing. Last year in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), we learned a number of elders were unclear on the meaning of identity. This year a minority of the Overtures Committee tried to avoid the confusion regarding identity by proposing this amendment to our Book of Church Order (BCO) Chapter 7:

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.

The proposed BCO amendment is clear, succinct, and straightforward. It bars anyone from office who describes himself according to his sinful and unnatural lust.

There seems to be a great deal of hostility to the change proposed by Overture 15 (Item 1 before the Presbyteries), but I wonder how much of the opposition comes from misunderstanding what the proposed amendment would do rather than reading the plain language.

I. Confusion by the Stated Clerk

In an otherwise anodyne summary of the history and state of the PCA given at Southwood PCA in Huntsville, Alabama, Stated Clerk TE Bryan Chapell, PhD described the “present division” within the denomination as centered on homosexual desire and whether “the desire itself is disqualifying.”

The Stated Clerk gave an overview of his efforts “organizing people from both sides” at General Assembly to resolve this matter. He indicated he urged “the opposing sides” to “listen to each other” and invited them to collaborate “in the same room” to resolve the scandal surrounding homosexuality in the PCA. The Stated Clerk notes the meeting he organized resulted in an “agreed upon proposal” (presumably Overtures 29 and/or 31), which easily passed the Overtures Committee.

The Stated Clerk then proceeded to give background on Overture 15 and how it came to the floor. TE Chapell stated, “sadly, those who were not in the room” came with another proposal (i.e. Overture 15) in addition to the “agreed to proposal” (i.e. Overtures 29 and/or 31) produced by the group brought together by the Stated Clerk.

He then characterized the “very divisive” Overture 15 as proposing to amend our BCO to state regarding homosexuality, “the desire itself is disqualifying.”

Both the consensus proposal crafted by those invited by the Stated Clerk to a meeting and the proposal of those “not in the room” passed the Assembly and are now before the presbyteries for consideration.

II. Clarity from the Text

While some might commend the Stated Clerk for trying to bring consensus between the wings of the PCA regarding officer qualifications, the trouble here is how he mischaracterized Overture 15.

Later, in a Q&A portion at the very end of his presentation, the Stated Clerk described the issue as whether or not, “the same sex attraction itself is more heinous, so heinous that it is automatically disqualifying.” That is a surprising description of our intramural disagreement given there is currently no proposal to disqualify someone from office on the mere basis of experiencing unnatural lust.

Read More

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]