Overtures from PCA GA 2021 have failed to pass 2/3rds of the presbyteries.

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
The PCA GA Overtures have failed to pass 2/3rds of the Presbyteries (about side B Gay 'Christians'). I'm not sure I understand #1 but I think he's saying don't blame the man in the pew for thinking those who voted against the overtures are all "soft on homosexuality." He's not going to understand BCO purist wonk-speak who chose BCO purity (the overtures are not necessary) over doing something to stave off stumbling and division.
'Words from a PCA Ruling Elder which sum up well my own thoughts today:
“Now that both Overtures have failed, I have a couple of thoughts:

“1) No Church person can be blamed for assuming that this means that the PCA has gone soft on homosexuality. For those who deal in equivocation and tone deafness and those who fancy themselves sophisticated because they can understand the same, those who don't live their lives that way cannot be faulted for the 9th Commandment violations of the former.

“2) I will continue to stand. I'm not pouting. I'm not even shocked it happened.

“3) I predicted in 2012 that the PCA would split within 10 years over homosexuality. It was because of the incapacity of so many Elders to think and argue in Reformed categories at the 2012 GA.

“4) Side B and Reformed theology are two diametrically opposed systems of doctrine. Either the former will be excised from our Church or the latter will. The two cannot coexist. I'm staying to fight that the PCA remain a Reformed Church.”'
 
What exactly were the PCA overtures in question?
"Overture 23, if adopted, would add the following language to the Book of Church Order (BCO) 16-1:

Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character. Those who profess an identity (such as, but not limited to, “gay Christian,” “same sex attracted Christian,” “homosexual Christian,” or like terms) 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.

Overture 37, if adopted, would add the following amendment to BCO 21-4 and 24-1 concerning the examinations of officers (elders and deacons):

In the examination of the candidate’s personal character, the presbytery shall give specific attention to potential notorious concerns, such as but not limited to relational sins, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, child sex abuse, fornication, and p0rnography), 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.10 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).11 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."
 
There are not enough progressives to have done this. It was all the moderates/institutionalists who for various reasons voted against these overtures that created this outcome.
Either way, it doesn't look good for the future of the denomination. My pastor and I visited a local presbytery meeting a while back because we were curious about how they would deal with these overtures. We were floored. Immediately the body voted to limit discussion of these matters to ten minutes. TEN MINUTES! On top of that, it was the most disorderly meeting I've ever seen—people cross-talking on the floor, not addressing the chair, making motions on top of motions, etc. Most of the arguments being made against the overtures were either entirely emotional or just irrelevant (e.g., the whole "What will this say to the SSA layman sitting in the pew?" nonsense, when these overtures clearly have nothing to do with laypeople).

If this is the way most presbytery meetings went, I completely understand now why they overtures failed. I'm praying for my brothers in the PCA.
 
There are not enough progressives to have done this. It was all the moderates/institutionalists who for various reasons voted against these overtures that created this outcome.
Silly question: What is an institutionalist in this context?
 
Silly question: What is an institutionalist in this context?
I guess that's my term for the bureaucrats that run the PCA, preserve the institution right or wrong, etc. Maybe it's the same thing as moderates. I'm no expert on PCA world, just live in it.
 
I guess that's my term for the bureaucrats that run the PCA, preserve the institution right or wrong, etc. Maybe it's the same thing as moderates. I'm no expert on PCA world, just live in it.
Makes sense - I’m not in that world at all so just curious.
 
How did we get here? What can we avoid this in other denominations? Is there a plan?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
How did we get here? What can we avoid this in other denominations? Is there a plan?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
I would think that such remarkable declension like this is a judgment of the Lord for significant prior decline in worship, 2nd commandment, and especially the Lord's Day.
 
I would think that such remarkable declension like this is a judgment of the Lord for significant prior decline in worship, 2nd commandment, and especially the Lord's Day.
God help our hearts. Let the hardened wax of our hearts melt under the flame of Christ. Form in us a malleable heart, able to be reformed and remade in the image of your Son. God help us all.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
How did we get here? What can we avoid this in other denominations? Is there a plan?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

What I've observed over my time in the PCA is that it's a problem of attitude. There are really two possible attitudes to take towards the action of the church. Either the action of the church is following God's means, or it is making its own because it thinks it knows better (or likely the way they say it, because it is helpful or useful). In other words: Reformed theology or Pragmatism.

There's a side of the PCA that is what you could call "Missional-Pragmatist-Progressive" because it all fits in together. That's why the way that the O23 and O37 issue was framed was around being "pastoral" or not. If it's about reaching people, then we can call it pastoral when we compromise on homosexuality in a way that allows people to still preserve their self-image of being orthodox (which Side B - at least Johnson's version - is designed to do). Ironically, it is really unpastoral to do so, since it points people to a worthless solution and voids them of hope.

Another aspect of being "missional" that results in progressive moves - the goal of numbers. The PCA strategic plan (in itself, already a questionable concept - the plan should be to trust and obey) says "well, numbers aren't everything...but we're gonna get the numbers because they're measurable." So what happens is a perceived need for more ministers. But God hasn't given us ministers who meet our qualifications (believe the Westminster Standards, have the right character, etc.)! Well, it must mean we're interpreting qualifications wrong, because who are we to prevent these really enthusiastic guys from doing ministry? They feel called, let's use them! And so the denomination lowers its qualifications - a "progressive" move (and one that allows for progressives) without progressive intentions.

This is where I think the conservatives in the PCA are going to fail. Many of them that I've talked to see the issue as just those progressives - if only we got rid of them, we'd be fine. So the goal is the PCA without the progressives. The disagreement I have with this, is that it doesn't fix the real issue of the cultural pragmatism which creates the progressive impetus in the first place. You can keep numbering down the issues, splitting each time...or you can look at a more fundamental cause, which is the culture, and target it.

Another aspect that's related is lack of catechizing (and as Chris notes, the declension in worship and the Lord's day). When I was in one PCA church a few years ago, the minister was a great guy. He was younger, and had just come into the position of senior pastor as the consequence of some issues with the previous pastor leaving suddenly. Right when I arrived, we met and he was in the process of discovering just how helpful the Westminster Catechisms actually were, and revectoring the church to start teaching according to them. He noted that it was a sad state of affairs when another member of Presbytery accused him of violating the 9th commandment...for simply stating that something which our standards call a sin, was in fact a sin. The fundamental confusion on what we actually believe, especially in elders, is harmful. And when something pernicious like Side B comes up, lack of familiarity with actual Reformed theology lets the Side B advocate play subtleties and tricks to get you to think he's just being orthodox.
 
For anyone interested, Presbycast has a lot of good discussion and analysis regarding the issues within the PCA the past couple years. Search for them on any podcast platform.
 
Conservatives, as far as I could tell, seemed focused on getting out to GA last year--strategy. My concerns mentioned more than once online was that we should be concerned that the Lord would not bless our efforts as long as we are not repenting of the sin in our own conservative camp. It was ironic to say the least that two of the conservative conferences prior to last year's GA were in churches with prominent images of Christ in their churches. We should have approached this with prayer and fasting and repentance for all the defects amongst us, the conservatives. while at the same time preparing responsibly to show up at the courts of the church. So, going forward, will conservatives recognize sin in the camp and address our sin appropriately; then maybe the Lord will bless with reform and right the listing sinking ship PCA. Or is it ignored because those issues are not really those of the majority of conservatives, which would show just how bad things are in the PCA.
 
I am sorry. I no longer attend a PCA church but my PCA experience was primarily very beneficial. This is sad.

I guess I am a little bit confused about why these overtures make such a distinction between church leaders and ordinary members. From the ByFaith link above:

"Should ordained officers in the PCA be permitted to identify as gay or #LGBTinChrist on social media? Are they qualified for office if they do?"

How can an ordinary unordained lay person be allowed to go on social media and post this as something acceptable either? I can understand posting about the struggle and temptations in an effort to be transparent and humble or ask for prayer or whatever. But its wrong to post it as an acceptable Christian identity. Those overtures seem to be entirely directed to officers in the church; they seem to not go far enough. Maybe it would have been better to include something also on qualifications for church membership, not just leaders. Did they wimp out?

Again, very sorry. We talked to a pastor recently who said that he thinks the Gospel Coalition is going to have to split over all the wokeness stuff going on, and I know a lot of PCA guys are in that. Its hard to watch.
 
PCA is lame and circling the drain.
Is it still a Church?

Is it still a part of the visible body of Christ?

Brother this seems like a poor statement regarding a very serious topic that is very disheartening for many brothers and sisters in Christ, both inside and outside the PCA.
 
Last edited:
There are not enough progressives to have done this. It was all the moderates/institutionalists who for various reasons voted against these overtures that created this outcome.
The "moderates/institutionalists" are progressives. They're just cowards on top of their progressivism. The PCA is a dead denomination. I and others are on the way out and this just confirmed the decision is the right one. No amount of "staying and fighting" is going to stop this.

To my fellow PCA elders, get out now, and find a place where you can minister according to your Scripture-informed conscience, and do all in your power to get your people out, too. Do it for the purity of God's name and His Church as well as for the flock's sake as well as yours.
 
Very sad to hear. I had hope when I saw what the GA came up with. When I saw it fail in Wisconsin, I started to be concerned. It sounds like this confirms it. Sorry to hear the bad news. You all could join the OPC. However, who knows how long the OPC has left either. We have similar issues when it comes to the RPW and second commandment issues. Thankfully we don't have a sodomy problem yet.
 
What I've observed over my time in the PCA is that it's a problem of attitude. There are really two possible attitudes to take towards the action of the church. Either the action of the church is following God's means, or it is making its own because it thinks it knows better (or likely the way they say it, because it is helpful or useful). In other words: Reformed theology or Pragmatism.

There's a side of the PCA that is what you could call "Missional-Pragmatist-Progressive" because it all fits in together. That's why the way that the O23 and O37 issue was framed was around being "pastoral" or not. If it's about reaching people, then we can call it pastoral when we compromise on homosexuality in a way that allows people to still preserve their self-image of being orthodox (which Side B - at least Johnson's version - is designed to do). Ironically, it is really unpastoral to do so, since it points people to a worthless solution and voids them of hope.

Another aspect of being "missional" that results in progressive moves - the goal of numbers. The PCA strategic plan (in itself, already a questionable concept - the plan should be to trust and obey) says "well, numbers aren't everything...but we're gonna get the numbers because they're measurable." So what happens is a perceived need for more ministers. But God hasn't given us ministers who meet our qualifications (believe the Westminster Standards, have the right character, etc.)! Well, it must mean we're interpreting qualifications wrong, because who are we to prevent these really enthusiastic guys from doing ministry? They feel called, let's use them! And so the denomination lowers its qualifications - a "progressive" move (and one that allows for progressives) without progressive intentions.

This is where I think the conservatives in the PCA are going to fail. Many of them that I've talked to see the issue as just those progressives - if only we got rid of them, we'd be fine. So the goal is the PCA without the progressives. The disagreement I have with this, is that it doesn't fix the real issue of the cultural pragmatism which creates the progressive impetus in the first place. You can keep numbering down the issues, splitting each time...or you can look at a more fundamental cause, which is the culture, and target it.

Another aspect that's related is lack of catechizing (and as Chris notes, the declension in worship and the Lord's day). When I was in one PCA church a few years ago, the minister was a great guy. He was younger, and had just come into the position of senior pastor as the consequence of some issues with the previous pastor leaving suddenly. Right when I arrived, we met and he was in the process of discovering just how helpful the Westminster Catechisms actually were, and revectoring the church to start teaching according to them. He noted that it was a sad state of affairs when another member of Presbytery accused him of violating the 9th commandment...for simply stating that something which our standards call a sin, was in fact a sin. The fundamental confusion on what we actually believe, especially in elders, is harmful. And when something pernicious like Side B comes up, lack of familiarity with actual Reformed theology lets the Side B advocate play subtleties and tricks to get you to think he's just being orthodox.

What I've observed over my time in the PCA is that it's a problem of attitude. There are really two possible attitudes to take towards the action of the church. Either the action of the church is following God's means, or it is making its own because it thinks it knows better (or likely the way they say it, because it is helpful or useful). In other words: Reformed theology or Pragmatism.

There's a side of the PCA that is what you could call "Missional-Pragmatist-Progressive" because it all fits in together. That's why the way that the O23 and O37 issue was framed was around being "pastoral" or not. If it's about reaching people, then we can call it pastoral when we compromise on homosexuality in a way that allows people to still preserve their self-image of being orthodox (which Side B - at least Johnson's version - is designed to do). Ironically, it is really unpastoral to do so, since it points people to a worthless solution and voids them of hope.

Another aspect of being "missional" that results in progressive moves - the goal of numbers. The PCA strategic plan (in itself, already a questionable concept - the plan should be to trust and obey) says "well, numbers aren't everything...but we're gonna get the numbers because they're measurable." So what happens is a perceived need for more ministers. But God hasn't given us ministers who meet our qualifications (believe the Westminster Standards, have the right character, etc.)! Well, it must mean we're interpreting qualifications wrong, because who are we to prevent these really enthusiastic guys from doing ministry? They feel called, let's use them! And so the denomination lowers its qualifications - a "progressive" move (and one that allows for progressives) without progressive intentions.

This is where I think the conservatives in the PCA are going to fail. Many of them that I've talked to see the issue as just those progressives - if only we got rid of them, we'd be fine. So the goal is the PCA without the progressives. The disagreement I have with this, is that it doesn't fix the real issue of the cultural pragmatism which creates the progressive impetus in the first place. You can keep numbering down the issues, splitting each time...or you can look at a more fundamental cause, which is the culture, and target it.

Another aspect that's related is lack of catechizing (and as Chris notes, the declension in worship and the Lord's day). When I was in one PCA church a few years ago, the minister was a great guy. He was younger, and had just come into the position of senior pastor as the consequence of some issues with the previous pastor leaving suddenly. Right when I arrived, we met and he was in the process of discovering just how helpful the Westminster Catechisms actually were, and revectoring the church to start teaching according to them. He noted that it was a sad state of affairs when another member of Presbytery accused him of violating the 9th commandment...for simply stating that something which our standards call a sin, was in fact a sin. The fundamental confusion on what we actually believe, especially in elders, is harmful. And when something pernicious like Side B comes up, lack of familiarity with actual Reformed theology lets the Side B advocate play subtleties and tricks to get you to think he's just being orthodox.

I think I read about that brother that simply called out sin and was derided for it. He did the right thing. Isn't it funny how people end up violating the 9th commandment by accusing others of violating the 9th commandment by calling out sin? Sin is insanity. It will make you mock the Son of God for being crucified whilst being crucified yourself:

Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
Matthew 27:38‭-‬40 ESV

I am but a man. I know I could fall into the same boat in an instant. I have lived enough years to know how weak my flesh is. But reading things like this never ceases to amaze me.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
guess I am a little bit confused about why these overtures make such a distinction between church leaders and ordinary members. From the ByFaith link above:

"Should ordained officers in the PCA be permitted to identify as gay or #LGBTinChrist on social media? Are they qualified for office if they do?"

How can an ordinary unordained lay person be allowed to go on social media and post this as something acceptable either

The overtures are directed at ways for session/presbytery to evaluate a candidate for office. An office holder has more qualifications to be an office holder than a "regular" member does to be a member. The qualifications for elder/deacon are ones all Christians should strive for, but someone should not be banned (excommunicated) out of hand for all the things that would disqualify someone from office. I would rather expect that those members go under discipline of some sort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top