An increasingly revisionist Presbyterian Church (USA) will take up legislation at its 226th General Assembly June 25 – July 4 in Salt Lake City barring ordination of candidates who are not LGBTQ-affirming.
Designated OVT-001, the proposal, known as an overture in Presbyterian parlance, would change two sections of the PCUSA Book of Order. The first change alters section F-1.0403, “Unity in Diversity,” to read (changes in brackets):
“The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, [gender identity, sexual orientation,] disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.”
This addition of “gender identity, sexual orientation” may initially seem unproblematic in the first two sentences of this section. Christ can indeed unite diverse people to himself, including those who struggle with gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction. Implicit in the inclusion of the categories of gender identity and sexual orientation, however, is that there is nothing problematic about gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction.
This becomes clear in the rest of F-1.0403, which bars all discrimination against anyone in these categories (what the Rationale section of OVT-001 refers to as “protected classes”), especially regarding “worship, governance, and emerging life” in the PCUSA.
All humans are created in the image of God and must be treated with dignity and respect, this must not be denied. The imago Dei does not, however, mean that nobody may be denied a role in church governance for practicing transgenderism or homosexuality.
In 1 Timothy 3, the Apostle Paul writes that elders must be “above reproach” and deacons must be “blameless” (among many other qualifications). Earlier in the same epistle – and in multiple other epistles – Paul follows the Old Testament’s condemnation of practicing homosexuality, demonstrating along with Jude that it is no more licit under the New Covenant than it was under the Old. Given this, it seems reasonable to conclude that homosexual activity would be worthy of reproach and blame, disqualifying one from holding church office.
Though Scripture does not address transgenderism as explicitly as homosexuality, biblical principles can nonetheless be applied to the issue. God created humans male and female, nowhere giving either license to act as the opposite sex. There is much that could be said in support of this, not least of which is the observation that Christ’s resurrection vindicates the goodness of the bodies God has given us, not bodies that we determine for ourselves. When we are resurrected at the return of Christ, we will all be resurrected in our sexed bodies, regardless of which gender one identifies as. To act against a part of our bodies so fundamental as our biological sex is to act against God’s design and purpose. Such a violation of God’s intentions must also disqualify anyone from church office.
The second change to the Book of Order would amend section G-2.0104b, “Gifts and Qualifications” to read (changes in brackets):
“b. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (F-1.02). The council responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-2.0402; G-2.0607; G-3.0306) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of ordered ministry. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.0404) [and in the principles of participation, representation, and non- discrimination found in F-1.0403]. Councils shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”
This would require all PCUSA elders and deacons to submit to the amended version of F-1.0403’s tacit endorsement of homosexuality and transgenderism. This change to the Book of Order would not only allow PCUSA church officers to disobey Scripture by living homosexual or transgender lifestyles, it would require officers to be unfaithful to Scripture by forcing them to commit to allowing ordination of individuals living in sin and unqualified for ordination.
In contrast, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which broke from a predecessor body of the PCUSA in 1973 and is the largest conservative Presbyterian denomination in the United States, has in recent years debated several overtures which would bar anyone identifying as gay from ordination. These overtures have met with mixed success in General Assembly and presbytery votes, but the General Assembly did adopt a study committee’s report concluding that same-sex attraction is sinful and Christians “should not identify with their sin so as to embrace it or seek to base their identity on it.” This directly contrasts OVT-001’s claim that “sexual orientation and gender identity are matters of core identity.”
The proposal of OVT-001 is no surprise – the PCUSA has allowed same-sex marriage since 2014. This is symptomatic of the denomination’s more fundamental rejection of Scriptural authority, which has resulted in conservative Presbyterian churches breaking away from the PCUSA and forming other denominations as early as 1936. The PCUSA has not gained the world in return for losing its soul, as the once-powerful denomination’s membership steadily declines.
Most Presbyterians committed to God’s design for human sexuality as revealed in Scripture and nature have already jumped ship from the PCUSA. Should OVT-001 be approved, however, any dissenters who have not yet sought other passage may be told to walk the plank.
Comment by Cody Watson on March 22, 2024 at 10:49 pm
We are all tempted. But is same sex attraction sin? Is opposite sex attraction sin? If one is an alcoholic is desiring a drink sin? Admittedly the PCUSA is way down the slippery slope. But does OVT-101 bar ordaining those who do not embrace LGBT lifestyles? Practicing sin should be cause for disqualification whether homosexual or heterosexual sin. But we in the PCUSA obfuscated that by accepting same sex marriage.
Comment by John Almquist on April 14, 2024 at 11:04 pm
Dear IRD,
This is a real threat to the 1,000 PCUSA remaining biblically orthodox churches and clergy in the PCUSA. A movement called “Matthew 25” PCUSA churches and presbyteries seems to be the backbone of this Overture. The PCUSA missions website for Matthew 25 churches and presbyteries has a button for Intersectional Priority Gender Justice & Heteropatriarchy. Under that heading the text makes clear that cisgender white males are the problem and nondiscrimination towards LGBT folks in the PCUSA is the overriding goal to attain justice and nondiscrimination. 85 of the 166 presbyteries are Matthew 25 presbyteries, over 50%. Pray for the Fellowship PCUSA churches. A few conservative presbyteries should be able to rely on Item 04-28 gracious dismissals (2008), for departing churches buying their way out. The remaining churches need to have session members establish 501(c)(3) organizations using an unrelated name and raise money to finance the congregations move elsewhere. How sad that the period of toleration of Christianity in the once great PCUSA seems to be ending to be replaced by radical Unitarian Theology. Unitarianism is not Christianity. So much for all the fanfare for the PUP report. Please pray for the Fellowship Churches
John A.
Comment by Amy Kosari on April 20, 2024 at 12:18 pm
Praying this overture will not pass. What feels very unfair to me is that it has always seemed to me a given that we would support those who disagree with us. For instance, I am a woman minister and I not only respect those who disagree with the ordination of women, I support them in their calling. I realize that we have a difference of opinion when it comes to the unpacking of the Scriptures, particularly Paul. I believe Paul is saying one thing and they believe he is saying another. And now my fellow liberals cannot extend respect and support to those like myself who in conscience see Isaiah 53 and 54 as the heart of the Bible? In other words, romance is not a side issue in the Bible. In Isaiah 52:13 through 54 we see a romance between the Lord and his assembly at Jerusalem (pictured as a woman) as being not only the heart of the Bible but most importantly named as “gospel.” Granted that in the previous Book of Order singleness should have had first place and marriage second place (it was a mistake for conservatives to reverse the order) but putting aside all the mistakes for now, we must recognize that Paul’s singleness was in service to this romance, this gospel between the Lord and his bride. Adam and Eve were created man and woman after the heavenly pattern. Let me be clear, Romans 1-2 is nothing but good news. The wrath of God is part of and indeed a sign of the Messiah, “the just who shall live by faith” (Doug Campbell). We see again and again throughout the Tanakh this pattern repeating itself and here in Romans 1-2 is Paul following its lead.
Comment by Jeff Barton on June 12, 2024 at 1:43 pm
I guess “Theological Conviction” doesn’t count as part of the “ Protected Classes”? The Theological Conviction of many believers does not include sexual identity or gender orientation as protected classes. So much for tolerance and inclusivity, I suppose.
Comment by Leslie Traylor on June 12, 2024 at 4:53 pm
If the overture does pass, the fight will be a two-year process at the presbytery level as we cannot change the Book of Order without the positive vote of the presbyteries. However, it would be a relief if it does not pass at the GA. This overture, should it pass, erases the authority of the local session to make this decision for its congregation.
Do you remember how much pain some felt when G-6…(whatever it was) was in force? The Olympia overture is in effect the same as G-6, but on the other side. It seems to me that a rewrite of the Book of Order communicated that we were going to trust local congregations to make decisions for themselves, rather than legislating on a national basis. This overture is a return to national legislation.
Comment by Geoff on June 14, 2024 at 5:27 pm
In response to Amy Kosari:
I find your response confusing so please clarify it for me. Women are a protected class against who we forbid discrimination. As I understand it, this means that no church is allowed to decide on their own that they will not allow women deacons, elders and even pastors. So why are you are criticizing this overture because it would provide a similar protection to lesbians and others in the LGBT community? Do they not deserve the same protection that you and others have? And why are we focusing on Timothy and not Galatians 3 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”? Why are some protected, but others are not? I believe that the love of God challenges us to expand our horizons, challenges us to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. And that is a scary thing to be sure.
Kindly yours.