Further Remarks Concerning the Fitness for Office Controversy in the Presbyterian Church in America

Last year I asserted that we should reconsider what terms we employ in discussing the question of fitness for office in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Subsequent correspondence suggests that such an assertion merits further consideration. Of particular interest is the concept of the unthinkable in moral questions.

In such matters conscious obedience to what has been explicitly stated is, it needs but little comment, of great importance. God has revealed his moral law in the Old Testament, clearly transcribing by the hand of his prophet Moses those things that he wishes men to do or refrain from doing. But alongside of the question of intentionally obeying such explicit commands is the related matter of the unthinkable.

Consider an example. Some time ago I was working in a clinic where a boy was getting a shot. He resisted by making a scene, to which what appeared to be his grandmother responded by chiding him for his incivility. The boy responded by loudly cursing this poor woman.

When I mentioned this incident to a coworker from Michigan, he, while not approving the behavior, nonetheless asserted there were occasions in which he could conceivably curse while addressing his mother, albeit not with a disrespectful tone. That notion, like the boy’s behavior, is utterly foreign to my Southern upbringing, so much so that I am not sure what would have happened to me if I had ever done either. It was simply inconceivable that I would ever curse in the presence of a parent or grandparent, much less toward one.

Nor was this because I had the advantage of a rigorous Presbyterian upbringing (I didn’t). I knew that one does not disrespect familial authority like that even when I was, at most, vaguely familiar that Ex. 21:17 exists. This was because I was the beneficiary of a common moral sense that had been developed and propagated by my culture in the form of sundry taboos.

And central to the effectiveness of such taboos is the concept of the unthinkable: for what cannot be thought in one’s own mind cannot be discussed with others, and what cannot be discussed openly cannot be done with impunity. The creation of the taboo is a strong impediment to the commission of the behavior it ultimately seeks to defend against.

Now such taboos are not merely a result of God’s common grace (where they are beneficial), nor a result of sin (where they depart from his will, Mk. 7:1-5, 9-20; 1 Tim. 4:3-5); they are to have their place also in the church, provided of course that they are fully in accord with scripture and do not go beyond it by forbidding what God allows (Col. 2:18, 20-23; 1 Tim. 4:3) or requires (Matt. 15:3-6). See, for example, 1 Corinthians 5. A man in Corinth had married his step mother (a violation of Lev. 18:8), and Paul in his letter is aghast that such a thing had not only occurred but also been boasted over (vv. 2, 6).

It is not clear why the church was boastful about such a thing, but some think that it involved a misunderstanding of liberty in Christ.¹ Whatever its precise cause, the church had stumbled by permitting what even pagans recognized as intolerably evil  (v. 1). Paul’s argument is that if even those who dwell in ignorant sin (Eph. 2:1-3) and do not know God (Gal. 4:8; Eph. 4:18) yet have enough moral understanding to abstain from such things, it should be yet more the case that the redeemed who are indwelled by his Spirit and know his will refrain from it. His is an argument from the lesser to the greater that proceeds from a high sense of moral propriety and issues as an extended ‘perish the thought!’ fit of righteous indignation that such a thing occurred in the church at all, much less received the response that it did.

Now we have heretofore had a useful moral sense and taboo in the PCA, in which it was simply unthinkable that people who were tempted to break certain sins forbidden by Lev. 18 would attain to leadership among us. This sense of the unthinkable was perhaps not absolute (e.g., there were earlier Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod and PCA studies on the sin in view), but it was widespread, particularly in the pews and in the classes of the PCA’s greatest presence. It was by no means perfect, for it was attended by a certain naivete that imagined that society’s broader normalization of the desire in view would never invade our communion. But we see now that worldly attitudes have intruded into our midst, a sad state of affairs that calls for a vigorous, decisive response (Rom. 12:2), lest our own church follow in the path of many others, who have embraced worldly morals and in so doing betrayed God and changed their allegiance to society.

Part of our response to society’s moral degradation on this point is to return to having it as unthinkable and unmentionable that a man who wishes to break Lev. 18:22 should lead others as they seek to grow in holiness. This does not preclude passing measures to amend our constitution to explicitly forbid men who experience the temptation (or at least describes themselves in light of it) from holding office. Prudence suggests the propriety of such a thing, and the present Overture 23 to amend the Book of Church Order purports to do just that; yet let no one imagine that amending our constitution will suffice to preserve our fidelity on this point, and let everyone remember that such a provision is useful only if it is enforced and if it is accompanied by an aggressive refusal to think along the worldly lines that have led to such a crisis in the first place.

Returning to a public, corporate, denominational sense of temptations to violate Lev. 18 as unthinkable in leaders will be an important accompaniment to such a concerted effort at refusing to think along worldly lines. I do not say that it alone shall suffice – there is much need for a robust, well-thought response to our society’s increasing prevalence of especially perverse sexual sin – but I do say that it will be an important part of maintaining scriptural integrity in this matter.

It has much to commend it. Very many among us still adhere to it as regards this sin. Everyone still adheres to it as regards pretty much every other sin forbidden by Lev. 18. If a man described himself as tempted to break 18:6, or 18:10, or 18:23, and applied for ordination, I am confident that he would be looked at as though he were some strange creature from Mars and asked from what lunatic asylum he had escaped before he came before presbytery with the idea that they would consider him fit to lead, rule, teach, and advise others in an entity which is to be conspicuous for its holiness and conformity to God’s law.

It is only as regards 18:22, and only very recently, that we have shed our taboos and begun to think such temptations might occur in our leaders. And it is a curious thing that is the sin which has a powerful lobby agitating for its acceptance in society: he is blind who cannot see that something like Overture 23 is only needed and controversial because we have drunk deeply from the cup of society’s notions of morality and of individual autonomy. Space will not permit us to consider those errant notions fully here, but suffice it to say that it is absolutely essential that we return to a state of affairs in which it is unthinkable that someone who feels a desire to break Lev. 18:22 would ever be a leader among us.

This is certainly not limited to that sin, nor even to the others of Lev. 18. If a man feels a real, continued desire to commit idolatry, burglary, drunkenness, blasphemy, or murder I cannot see where he is morally fit to lead unless and until those desires are successfully mortified. This does not mean – perish that thought too! – that people who are tempted to office-disqualifying sins (sexual or other) are second class believers or less than those who do not experience them.

Christ is one, and he alone is righteousness for all who believe in him, irrespective of anything in themselves and irrespective of their place in the church. But office has higher standards than membership, is available only to a select few (Jas. 3:1), and is not meant to glorify the ones who hold it but so that they may serve everyone else in humility and without partiality. (Mk. 10:42-45; 1 Tim. 5:21). And while I will not mention particulars here, this article is written by one who considers himself unfit for office.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Greenville Co., SC. The statements made in this article are the personal opinions of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at tomhervey@substack.com. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

1. Compare the extended discussion of sexual immorality in 6:12-20, in which Paul directly addresses the statement, perhaps in use among the Corinthians themselves, that “all things are lawful” (v. 12) by clearly showing that sexual immorality is not in fact lawful. It is widely thought that a mistaken notion of liberty was present among the Corinthians and showed in such statements as this, and in the incident of chapter 5.