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).
A glorious truth, but there was a difference in Christ’s temptations and ours in that his were wholly external (from the Devil, Matt. 4:11), whereas ours are generally internal: “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (Jas. 1:14). As for conflating temptation with sin, my position is that sin and temptation are indeed distinct, but that both, depending on their precise nature, may unfit one for office. That some sins disqualify is obvious (1 Tim. 3:3), but I would ask, if it be doubted that the experience of some temptations should also be deemed disqualifying, if you would be comfortable with your church having a youth pastor who openly professed a temptation to pedophilia?
I'm skeptical that passing Overture 23, etc., will "be an important part of maintaining scriptural integrity in this matter." I don't think it's likely to make any difference at all.
From where I'm sitting, the main substantive benefit to Overture 23, etc., is that the debate surrounding it is causing a lot of masks to slip. Anyone actively opposing such amendments clearly can't be trusted. But a lot of the men most strongly in favor probably can't be trusted either. I'd vote for these overtures, if I had the opportunity to do so, but I'm deeply ambivalent about them and would never have proposed them myself.
Why? Because there's nothing in the BCO that prevents PCA elders from enforcing what these overtures purport to accomplish. If a majority of PCA elders were willing to rigorously enforce something like the limitations on ordination implied by Overture 23, etc., they'd be doing it already. The fact that that isn't what's happening is, in my mind, pretty strong evidence that no such majority exists. As such, changing the rules won't fix anything.
I think the real problem is that quite a few of those that claim to want stricter rules for ordination don't actually want to have to enforce said rules themselves. That would require individual elders to take personal responsibility for wielding genuine authority based on their individual judgment rather than falling back on managerial proceduralism. The fact that so many elders think changing the rules is going to make some kind of difference betrays an implicit affinity for managerial proceduralism, i.e., exactly the kind of attitude which will avoid tough enforcement actions at all cost.
Enforcing ordination criteria is never going to be a function of following rules and checking boxes off a list. If there's question about the quality of men being ordained, adding more boxes to the list isn't going to fix the problem.
So the effort behind Overture 23, etc., comes across as so much LARPing. There are lots of elders who love to write high-minded op-eds. Lots of elders who are willing to rally behind high-profile, procedural Overtures. But when it comes time for a Credentials Committee to reject a candidate for ordination? Or to call an existing TE on the carpet for questionable takes? Crickets.
And when anyone has the temerity to point out that our shepherds aren't doing their jobs? Yeah, those guys get protested as "intemperate," "divisive," "uncharitable," or whatever epithet will deflect criticism and silence the critic. They get charged with frivolous, question-begging Ninth Commandment violations. They don't get offered book/blog/podcast deals. They certainly don't get invited to the big conferences or cool parties.
I'm inclined to agree with much of what you have said here. I am rather ambivalent about Overture 23 myself (albeit tilted somewhat in favor of support), and the thought has crossed my mind that its BCO change might be on the books for all of a fortnight before someone comes forward and argues that there is nothing impure or unchaste about calling oneself a '[insert perverse desire here] Christian' as long as one includes with it a claim that one doesn't act on said desires. I.e., that the overture's recommended change to the BCO's language - "[an elder] should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his descriptions of himself, and in his convictions, character, and conduct" - will be so generic and broad as to be worthless.
And the thought has also crossed my mind that the great energy for getting this overture passed might mean a real lack of zeal for enforcing it. I.e., that people think simply having such language on the books is some sort of talisman that makes everyone it's intended to prohibit stay away. As you say, fondness for the legislating ("managerial proceduralism") side of it, which betrays a distaste for the nasty business of enforcing it. And of course a law that is not enforced is no true law.
And of course this will all play out, as you say, at the presbytery level, away from the knowledge of most of our people. And it is conceivable that this will look different from presbytery to presbytery.
Just to clarify, though, I regard the taboo of having such things as unthinkable as "an essential part of maintaining scriptural integrity in this matter." I do not say that about Overture 23, and am inclined to your position that our present BCO should suffice to prevent those who are not right to lead from attaining to office among us.
I'm not sure I would frame the matter exactly like that - and that's a hefty question to answer in a comment - so let me ponder and see if I can formulate an answer in a future post or via private message.
Christ is was tempted in every way yet without sin. Please do not confuse the temptation of a sin with sinning.
A glorious truth, but there was a difference in Christ’s temptations and ours in that his were wholly external (from the Devil, Matt. 4:11), whereas ours are generally internal: “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (Jas. 1:14). As for conflating temptation with sin, my position is that sin and temptation are indeed distinct, but that both, depending on their precise nature, may unfit one for office. That some sins disqualify is obvious (1 Tim. 3:3), but I would ask, if it be doubted that the experience of some temptations should also be deemed disqualifying, if you would be comfortable with your church having a youth pastor who openly professed a temptation to pedophilia?
I'm skeptical that passing Overture 23, etc., will "be an important part of maintaining scriptural integrity in this matter." I don't think it's likely to make any difference at all.
From where I'm sitting, the main substantive benefit to Overture 23, etc., is that the debate surrounding it is causing a lot of masks to slip. Anyone actively opposing such amendments clearly can't be trusted. But a lot of the men most strongly in favor probably can't be trusted either. I'd vote for these overtures, if I had the opportunity to do so, but I'm deeply ambivalent about them and would never have proposed them myself.
Why? Because there's nothing in the BCO that prevents PCA elders from enforcing what these overtures purport to accomplish. If a majority of PCA elders were willing to rigorously enforce something like the limitations on ordination implied by Overture 23, etc., they'd be doing it already. The fact that that isn't what's happening is, in my mind, pretty strong evidence that no such majority exists. As such, changing the rules won't fix anything.
I think the real problem is that quite a few of those that claim to want stricter rules for ordination don't actually want to have to enforce said rules themselves. That would require individual elders to take personal responsibility for wielding genuine authority based on their individual judgment rather than falling back on managerial proceduralism. The fact that so many elders think changing the rules is going to make some kind of difference betrays an implicit affinity for managerial proceduralism, i.e., exactly the kind of attitude which will avoid tough enforcement actions at all cost.
Enforcing ordination criteria is never going to be a function of following rules and checking boxes off a list. If there's question about the quality of men being ordained, adding more boxes to the list isn't going to fix the problem.
So the effort behind Overture 23, etc., comes across as so much LARPing. There are lots of elders who love to write high-minded op-eds. Lots of elders who are willing to rally behind high-profile, procedural Overtures. But when it comes time for a Credentials Committee to reject a candidate for ordination? Or to call an existing TE on the carpet for questionable takes? Crickets.
And when anyone has the temerity to point out that our shepherds aren't doing their jobs? Yeah, those guys get protested as "intemperate," "divisive," "uncharitable," or whatever epithet will deflect criticism and silence the critic. They get charged with frivolous, question-begging Ninth Commandment violations. They don't get offered book/blog/podcast deals. They certainly don't get invited to the big conferences or cool parties.
It's all so tiresome.
I'm inclined to agree with much of what you have said here. I am rather ambivalent about Overture 23 myself (albeit tilted somewhat in favor of support), and the thought has crossed my mind that its BCO change might be on the books for all of a fortnight before someone comes forward and argues that there is nothing impure or unchaste about calling oneself a '[insert perverse desire here] Christian' as long as one includes with it a claim that one doesn't act on said desires. I.e., that the overture's recommended change to the BCO's language - "[an elder] should conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in his descriptions of himself, and in his convictions, character, and conduct" - will be so generic and broad as to be worthless.
And the thought has also crossed my mind that the great energy for getting this overture passed might mean a real lack of zeal for enforcing it. I.e., that people think simply having such language on the books is some sort of talisman that makes everyone it's intended to prohibit stay away. As you say, fondness for the legislating ("managerial proceduralism") side of it, which betrays a distaste for the nasty business of enforcing it. And of course a law that is not enforced is no true law.
And of course this will all play out, as you say, at the presbytery level, away from the knowledge of most of our people. And it is conceivable that this will look different from presbytery to presbytery.
Just to clarify, though, I regard the taboo of having such things as unthinkable as "an essential part of maintaining scriptural integrity in this matter." I do not say that about Overture 23, and am inclined to your position that our present BCO should suffice to prevent those who are not right to lead from attaining to office among us.
Your clarification is recognized and appreciated.
Sounds like you might be with me in thinking that the PCA's biggest problem right now might be cowardice. If so, what do we do?
I'm not sure I would frame the matter exactly like that - and that's a hefty question to answer in a comment - so let me ponder and see if I can formulate an answer in a future post or via private message.
Fair enough.