What Happened at the 2022 PCA General Assembly?

Welcome, once again, to the Conversations That Matter podcast. I'm your host, as always, John Harris, with two friends of mine who have both been on the podcast before.

We have Zach Garris and Sean McGowan. And Zach is a pastor at Bryce Avenue Presbyterian Church in White Rock, New Mexico.

And we also have Sean McGowan with us, who is a pastor at Westminster Presbyterian in Tallahassee and on the board of Covenant College now.

Congratulations to you, Sean, and thank you for both of you coming on and weighing in on the

PCA. Thanks for having me, bro. I appreciate it, because I have, I think, a number of listeners in the audience who are

PCA members, and I get emails occasionally, and I think they're frustrated that I've talked about the SBC. I don't know how many episodes

I've put out, like eight since the convention on the SBC. And the PCA, of course, is smaller, but it's the largest

Presbyterian denomination, I believe, in the United States. Is that correct? No, we're not the largest, but we're the largest conservative evangelical.

The largest Christian Presbyterian denomination in the United States. Given enough time, we will be the largest.

Okay, so you're growing then. Well, and the other one is dying, the PCUSA. Right. Yeah.

I noticed, let's start the conversation off this way. I noticed that the OPC, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, put out a statement within the last two weeks on critical race theory stuff, that topic, and it was very disappointing for conservatives.

And I think coming from the OPC, that was, you know, for people who thought the OPC was rather solid, were a little disappointed in that.

And I was expecting the PCA General Assembly to go a similar direction, that they were going to, probably there would be a few wins for conservatives, but generally there was going to be a slide.

That doesn't seem to have happened, though. It seems like there were some major wins, right? Zach, you want to tell us about some of those?

Yeah, I would say overall, this was a good assembly. I thought, you know, as far as the conservatives would evaluate things, they thought it went quite well.

You mentioned CRT. There was an overture on that to speak against it, but that was postponed indefinitely.

But I do think that will be a topic that receives a lot of attention in the future.

So it was more the wording of it. So there were a couple like that that did not pass, but overall, there were some good moves.

Maybe the first thing to mention here is the PCA left the NAE, which is the

National Association of Evangelicals. I don't know how familiar your listeners are with the

NAE, but it's a fairly broad organization. I think the big argument in favor of leaving was that the

NAE has a lot of positions on controversial topics, things like gun control.

You can just go read it on their website, and these don't necessarily reflect the views of the PCA. We might not have official views as a denomination on those topics, and so why do we want to be a part of an organization that is speaking to them?

So that was a very strong argument against it. There have been efforts to leave the

NAE in the past, and they failed. So even this year, the former stated clerk,

L. Roy Taylor, who's well -known and influential, he spoke against leaving.

He wanted to stay, and he's done this in the past. But the Assembly voted to leave 60 % to 40%, so that's pretty overwhelming.

And why did they vote to leave? Was that because the NAE has become so compromised over the years, and these are more conservative members who are realizing this?

Yeah. So I think talking to people, I think there were a few different reasons for, particularly conservatives.

One of them was, to Zach's point, that there was a lot of issues that the

NAE would speak to that the PCA maybe hasn't taken a position on or wouldn't take a position on.

And it was almost like the NAE was speaking for the PCA when they spoke on those positions.

Others were concerned that we were the only reformed denomination in the

NAE. All the other reformed denominations had left, and one speaker gave the names, some of the denominations that are in the

NAE, and there's a wide disparity between PCA and them.

So I think that was a reason for a lot of people. And also the cost,

I mean, I believe it was about $25 ,000 annually to stay in the

NAE and be represented by the NAE. And people thought we could spend that money in a better way and maybe join another entity like NAPARC or something like that, which has more like -minded believers and things like that.

And I think for a lot of people also, it wasn't necessarily that we had affiliations with churches that were different theologically than us.

It was more so the politics and some of the things that they spoke to. And also just one other argument that was made was the fact that this didn't bind individual churches from joining the

NAE if they wanted to. Churches that wanted to stay can actually join themselves and be represented by NAE as an individual church.

What this did was it allowed for those who didn't want to be a part of the

NAE to not be represented at a denominational level. So that was another argument that was put forth too.

But that's kind of how it is, John, with a lot of these positions. You're going to realize that conservatives in particular will vote for it for different reasons.

But those were generally the reasons why. Carl Robbins, Teaching Elder, Calvary Presbytery.

I would speak in favor of the overtures from your committee of commissioners, which was adopted by a 70 % vote yesterday morning by that body.

This is Overture 3 in your commissioner's handbook, which originated from P .D.

Presbytery. And that overture was sent up by a unanimous vote of that presbytery.

And I'd like to briefly state four reasons that we are urging the Assembly to withdraw from the

NAE immediately. The first is a misplaced ecumenism.

We delight in our affiliation with NAPARC. We're thankful for those 16 other denominations we have in almost all cases in identical confession and practice.

But we don't find we have the same connection with the 39 denominations in the

NAE. Let me just read some of these names to you. The Foursquare Church, founded by Amy Semple McPherson, Vineyard, the

Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, the Seventh Day Baptist Church, the International Pentecostal Church of Christ.

You've probably never heard of those that I just named. Many of these have aberrant views on creation, fall, justification, sanctification, continuing revelation, women in office, worship in the

Lord's day, and much more. One argument has been made that if we leave the

NAE, the only vehicle we would then have for ecumenicity is NAPARC and the

World Reform Fellowship. But there are other wonderful options such as the ICRC, the

International Council of Reformed Churches, a gathering which would be greatly enriched by our presence.

Thirty -four denominations from the ARP, OPC, and URCNA to reformed denominations in the

Congo, Sudan, South Africa, Ireland, Korea, Brazil, Spain, and more.

If we were to join with the ICRC, we would not be the largest church. That rank would be held by the

Koshin Church in Korea. But those of us who wish to depart from the NAE have no problem fellowshipping with Christians who are not like -minded.

We all do that in our communities around things like crisis pregnancy centers and Christian schools and mercy ministries.

But what we do have a problem with is other churches speaking for us and making pronouncements about everything from, and I'm quoting here from the

NAE's page on their website, environmentalism, entertainment, coronavirus, education, predatory lending practices, immigration, voting and election, and much more.

We don't want other folks pronouncing for us. A second reason why we would encourage the

Assembly to leave the NAE is poor stewardship of finances. When our membership to be a part of the

NAE begins with $20 ,000 plus in terms of our annual dues and then the meter starts ticking, they're going up, all the costs for travel and hotels.

When we think of that compared to NAPARC, our annual dues for NAPARC are $1 ,000. And so we just have a hard time justifying the stewardship of being in NAE.

A third reason, and this really is our core reason why we would urge the

Assembly to depart from NAE, is the issue of Christian liberty. We would ask the

Assembly to stop binding our consciences and give us freedom. If you and your congregation want to be in the

NAE, that is great. There are, the NAE allows for, they invite memberships from congregations that have very reasonable rates.

I sound like a salesman at this point. They, you can, your congregation can be a member of the

NAE for as little as $100 a year. Schools can be a member of the NAE.

Non -profits can be a member. So anyone who wishes to be a member of the

NAE may do so. Your liberty is not being infringed if any of us do not want to be members.

You may still freely do so. We all understand the principle of exercising our liberty in who we support.

The congregation I serve supports certain organizations, but not others. We support seminaries, colleges, mission agencies, evangelistic groups, campus ministries, and crisis pregnancy centers.

But we have never dreamed of trying to bind others' consciences and mandate that they must also support who we support through their funds and identification.

And we ask the question, why does Interchurch Relations want to bind our consciences with this parachurch group?

There are large numbers of PCA members who want no affiliation with the

NAE. Our affiliation with the NAE is usually either a source of confusion or embarrassment to most of us.

Please let us out. The fourth reason I would give for leaving immediately is our best ecclesiastical thinkers in the

PCA have spoken very clearly on this. I'm very thankful for Fred Greco and David Coffin, who in the last several weeks have put out statements on this,

Fred Greco, and I'm quoting them from their own writings. Fred Greco said, the NAE has turned into a political commenting body, making explicit political statements and lobbying for various positions, legislations, and executive action.

They've even lobbied for legislation contrary to our standards. Dr. Coffin wrote, the

NAE offers the following principal benefits of membership. First, a logo, which gives anyone in the

NAE credibility. Dr. Coffin responds, we have sufficient credibility as a visible branch of the

Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, the NAE says one of the benefits of membership is a public affirmation of the

NAE's statement of faith, the gold standard of evangelical belief since 1942. But in the

Westminster Confession, we have the gold standard of reformed belief since 1642. And then,

Dr. Coffin points out that the other benefit, the principal benefit of membership that the

NAE offers is a recognized voice in Washington championing evangelical concerns.

Dr. Coffin states, we don't need a voice in Washington championing political concerns that would not even be permitted as a subject of discussion before our courts, let alone adopted as positions.

For these reasons, your committee of commissioners would urge the assembly to approve

Overture 3 and to allow us to immediately and peacefully withdraw from the

NAE. I do want to talk about the this abuse issue, because that was what affected the

SBC convention this year so much is really the Me Too agenda coming in in the door.

And the PCA had something, well, similar, maybe not quite as headline grabbing, but they had some some issues pertaining to that.

So can you tell us what happened and what the results or potential results are of Me Too thinking coming into the

PCA? Yeah, just note there was a presentation of a report on abuse.

It's called the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault. I think there was a study report on it.

And so the committee was reporting on this at the assembly. And they went on for for quite a while.

They had some different speakers up there, one of which was Rachel Denhollander, who's obviously addressed this issue in different contexts.

So you know, a lot of us haven't had a chance to read the report. And so I think that's really what's just going to have to happen is we'll we'll take a look at it.

But like I said, the the presentation went on for a while. There was, we should note one moment of controversy.

There was a teaching elder, a pastor who objected to women teaching scripture, essentially, in that context.

I think some of the women were at least quoting scripture, exhorting in some sense.

And so he was booed. And then there was a point of order made by someone after him against that speaker.

And then that was applauded. So I think it should be noted, though, that, you know, there's not supposed to be clapping or booing.

And so that was even if you disagreed with the guy, that was out of line. Mr. Moderator, we don't just have to follow the order that's written in the book of church order, but also the order of King Jesus.

And during this committee report, we are teaching Elder Joel Linton, Providence Presbytery.

During this committee report, we heard the women exhort on spiritual matters to the assembly of God's people over adult men.

And that is against their order of 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14 and all the rest of scripture.

So I would remind, ask the committees in the church to be careful when they are giving women to report to not do that anymore.

Sir, the delivery that was made was a requested report of a committee.

If you wish to appeal accordingly, that report was in order as to its composition.

It was the request of the assembly. I appreciate your concern, but I believe it's out of order. This is just some kind of advice and recommendation to implement some of these things into your churches, your context.

But it's not something that is a statement that's binding, like perhaps an overture could be or something like that.

But I will note this, and correct me if I'm wrong, John. This was not like the

SBC in the sense that it was an investigation. This was not an investigation into, you know, abuse in the

PCA or anything like that. This was simply a report on how churches should guard against abuse and how we should respond and things like that.

It was a theology of abuse and things like that. To Zach's point,

I've read a little bit of it. I have not read the whole thing. So I think it would be wise to kind of reserve comments on the actual report.

But more than likely, there will be overtures that come to the next

General Assembly in response to this report, whether trying to amend the

BCO to implement some of the reports content into the

Constitution or making a statement about something in regards to the report. So I'm pretty positive that there will be some overtures that will be brought to the

Assembly and debated next year. So it's interesting, Rachel Denhollander at the

PCA and very much involved with the Guideposts report that came through at the

SBC. So I don't know. It'd be interesting to see kind of who are the experts, quote unquote, that are kind of behind this push to address this in particular ways.

I can see what it's doing to the SBC, and I would hate for that to happen down the road at the PCA. And I'm hoping that the foot wasn't put in the door, so to speak, to kind of leave it open a little bit for that.

That's not the fight full fledged, though, this year, the bigger fight was the Overture 29 and Overture 15.

And it seems like the conservatives really won the day on this. What can you tell me about these overtures?

So there were a number of overtures that were aimed at addressing the big issue,

I would say, in the PCA, which is over homosexuality. No one is arguing that I'm aware of that in favor of practicing homosexuality or anything like that.

This all has to do with ministers and their qualifications. And so a lot of people know that the big figure involved in this is

Greg Johnson, and he's at Memorial Presbyterian in St.

Louis. And so that's the Missouri Presbytery. So there's a lot of background to this. And I don't know if we should get into all of that now, but there's been debate over the language used, whether someone should call themselves a gay

Christian or a homosexual Christian, even if they're not practicing.

So it's this identity language and they're based on their attraction. So there was an overture passed last year at the

GA General Assembly to address that. That was Overture 23, and it had some flaws,

I think we can say. I still thought it was good. I supported it, but it passed.

It passed to the General Assembly, but it needed two thirds of the presbyteries to vote for it, and it failed.

And it was very close. I think it failed by four presbyteries. So it was very close.

So there were more overtures this year aimed at the same exact issue, and that's where Overture 29 comes in.

Now, like I said, there were several overtures aimed at this. They're all trying to modify our

BCO, the Book of Church Order, to some extent. BCO is one of our important documents, just like the

Westminster Confession or Westminster Standards. So let me mention what

Overture 29 was going to do and what it says here.

I should note it's broader language. So whereas the next one I'm going to mention is particularly aimed at homosexuality, it uses that word.

This is broader language that's thought, well, this will address a variety of things, including homosexuality.

And so that's why this was heavily supported. This passed 95 % at the Assembly. So that's pretty impressive.

This was the recommendation of the Overtures Committee. This was the route they want to go in addressing the problem.

So let me read it for you. It would go into Chapter 16 .4 of the

BCO, and it says, Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America must be above reproach in their walk and Christlike in their character.

Okay, that seems pretty obvious. While office bearers will see spiritual perfection only in glory, they will continue in this life to confess and amortify remaining sins in light of God's work of progressive sanctification.

And here's the important part. Therefore, to be qualified for office, they must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, and be committed to the pursuit of spirit empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.

So this is using language that should rule out what's known as side

B. Yeah, the revoice stuff. Yeah, because it's saying that an officer must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires.

So it's saying that fallen desires, which would be homosexual attraction and desire, that that is fallen.

And then the minister must be, or officer, must be committed to victory over sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.

So it's saying homosexuality is not just a temptation, but it's an inclination. Oh, go ahead.

I was just going to say the weaknesses is it doesn't say homosexuality. So that's the challenge. What I was going to say.

I mean, they could be in their minds kind of justifying, well, we don't consider this to be a fallen desire.

This is I mean, I've often heard it compared to a disability or some it's just like heterosexual desires.

In fact, if you read Greg Johnson's book that he just came out with, he kind of compares the two as if they're equally fallen in some way.

So, you know, I wonder whether even revoice supporters could see this. The language is broad enough that they're like, oh, this won't conflict with what we're saying, even though we as Orthodox believers look at this and say, yes, it does.

Clearly. I mean, do you think some of that was going on? Well, I don't know exactly what's going on.

I do think there's a need for Overture 15, which we'll get into here in a moment. I would just point out here that this doesn't rule out using the language gay

Christian or homosexual Christian. Someone could still use that phrase. And I don't think as an officer, as a pastor or elder, and I don't think this rules that out.

Is that how you see it, Sean? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, look,

I think at the end of the day, if if Presbyterian sessions just implemented the

BCO as it stands, we wouldn't have this issue in the

PCA. The reason that we're having to deal with this is because Presbyterians and Sessions are not implementing it.

Obviously, some of them aren't given some of the people that are ministers and elders in the

PCA. But so I think this kind of has the same issue that the language is clear, but it all comes down to if Presbyterians are willing to implement it.

So, you know, in some sense, in some sense, you could put anything in there.

But but you're assuming that the Presbyterians are going to are going to uphold that and they're going to hold hold people that come into ministry accountable in that sense.

I think that the reason Overture 29 was was very successful and there was a lot of people on at least conservatives that were pushing this particular overture is because of the broadness.

Now, we can debate whether that's correct or not, but but their argument would essentially be what happens when we when we are past the homosexual issue and we come to the transgender issue and you have a transgender

Christian that wants to be a minister? What happens when you move past that and you have a pedophile, you know, pedophilia and you have a pedophile

Christian who wants to be a minister? The broadness would know the argument, at least suggest the broadness would cover all of those things.

It's almost like an umbrella. Right. And all those categories are underneath that. Um, that was why

I think Overture 29 was appealing to a lot of people. And part of the reason which we'll get to why

Overture 15, what became Overture 15 was was not appealing to people because of its specificity.

Now, we could get into that in a minute, but but that's the main reason I think why Overture 29 passed was the the broadness allowed for it to deal with other issues that will come up in the future.

Well, I have, you know, the the the place here where Greg Johnson, I guess, spoke against this in my notes.

And he said that this was already in the standards, as I understand it, that this was kind of unnecessary.

I was teaching Elder Greg Johnson, Missouri Presbytery. I can affirm every word in this overture.

In fact, it's redundant because this is already in our standards. We would never ordain anyone who doesn't fit this, these matters.

My concern is over speaking the truth in love. We have spilled so many words saying that homosexuality is a sin, that homosexual desire is sin, that the temptation toward it is sin.

We have affirmed that marriage is only between a man and a woman. We have affirmed the

Nashville Statement Against Identification. We had a 60 -page

AIC report on sexuality which talked about gay people for 60 pages and didn't once say that God loves gay people.

It didn't say that, you know, it acknowledged that many same -sex attracted believers in our pews have been hurt by the church, but it didn't talk about what those hurts are, how they're still happening.

It didn't confess them or repent of them or ask for forgiveness for them. And granted, I'm not criticizing the committee for doing something that it wasn't assigned to do.

None of us can do that. My concern is that we keep saying things again and again and again about how sinful gay people are, about how sinful same -sex attraction is, but I've heard from so many people who say, gosh,

I wish someone would tell me that God loves me. I wish my pastor would tell me that.

I wish I wouldn't be treated like I'm one step above the church pedophile.

I wish we could tell positive stories about same -sex attracted people.

I wish my parents weren't so adversarial, because we're talking about people made in God's image.

I mean, I was a gay atheist teenager when Jesus captured my heart, and the only thing

I ever want to talk about is the gospel. And what I'm not hearing from this conversation is very much about the gospel, because Jesus Christ loves gay people, and he forgives sin, he covers shame, and he has mercy on the wicked.

So I can't support this because the other side isn't spoken.

So it's interesting that Johnson spoke against 29 rather than 15.

29 came up first, and he may not have realized or known, couldn't have known exactly how things were going to go.

But 15 was a minority report, and it ended up becoming the substitute motion, and we voted on it and passed it.

And so he didn't get a chance to speak against it, even though we know from his Twitter that he opposed 15.

He said he agreed with the language of 29. So let me just say here, this has been a problem.

This was a problem last year with Overture 23. One of the arguments people are making against it is that we don't need it.

They say, look, we have this stuff in our standards. You can go to the Westminster Larger Catechism in particular.

And let me read, in one sense, I agree with this, and then I'll comment. But let me read what

Westminster Larger Catechism 139 says. This is, what are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

So thou shall not commit adultery. We interpret that more broadly to include other sexual sins. It says the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, and it mentions a bunch, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts.

So that would include, I think, homosexual desire. But it goes further, all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections.

So it's very clear. So these kind of things are sins.

And so even homosexual desire is not only a fallen desire, but it's a sinful desire.

Now, that's in our standards. But this becomes a problem with officers because, well, for one,

I would say there's been churches that have not entirely affirmed our standards. So that's a problem. They would disagree with some of this stuff.

And it's not taught enough to overcome that.

And there's no discipline. It's not dealt with. So that's an issue. But then when you apply it specifically to officers, someone like Greg Johnson seems to affirm this, that the desire is fallen.

But then he still has used confusing language at times. And that's where the debate over can someone call themselves a gay

Christian comes up. So maybe we should get into 15. And then I'll mention what

Johnson said about it. So this is the reason a lot of guys think we need this in the

BCO to address the officers. So, like I said,

Overture 15 was pretty interesting what happened. The Overture's committee actually recommended voting against 15 because they wanted to go with 29.

They think that's sufficient. But there was a minority of the Overture's committee that supported

Overture 15. And then they got to do a defense of it up front.

And this was Matt Fender from Richmond, Virginia. And he gave what

I thought was a very good speech in favor of it. And so if someone's interested, they should go watch that. I think it's about 15 minutes.

So some guys were arguing that this was too specific or in the wrong place in the book of church order, which that just seems kind of not a big deal.

But let me read it. It's very short. And I think it's very to the point. And it says, this would go in chapter 7 .4

of the BCO, 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. So it's nice and brief. It's to the point. I think the language is very clear.

And yet we were seeing arguments against it. And the word describe was used instead of identify.

So that was actually a modification by the minority committee, minority report of the overtures committee.

I think that's an improvement. I think the identity language is it's just not as clear.

And so describe is great saying you as an individual should not use this language for yourself, although some were arguing against the word describe.

I mean, this is just how these things go, unfortunately. The majority representative was mainly making the argument about it being in the wrong place in the

BCO. Some guys started to complain that it says claim to practice celibacy, like as if that's some negative word choice.

I totally disagree with that. I think it's neutral because you can never know if someone is actually celibate.

So it's just simply it's just saying, OK, this person is this is a person who is calling themselves a homosexual, right?

That's the whole point is aimed at such a person, even if they claim to be celibate by refraining from homosexual conduct.

That's neutral, just going, OK, we're going to. We're going to recognize that they are celibate based off their claim.

But if they're still using that language of homosexual. Then they are disqualified from holding office.

So this is specifically targeting the language of gay Christian or homosexual Christian.

I think it's very clear. It's very simple. Now, let me mention what happened.

So this was this was very close. It was heated. Like I said, it was a minority report.

So then we needed a vote just to pass it as the substitute motion.

And so that happened first. And then we passed it. Fifty four percent. That's it.

Fifty four percent. It barely passed. And one of the big things that happened, this is where Paul Robertson got up and spoke.

And many people are familiar with that name because he wrote a well -known book called

Christ of the Covenants. He's written some other great books as well. I mean, you could go look, look them up on Amazon and see he's written a number of books over the years.

He taught at several reformed seminaries back in the day, including where I went,

RTS Jackson. I think he was at Westminster in Philadelphia for a little bit. He then went to African Bible College and I think he was in Uganda, but they have a couple different campuses.

He was there for like twenty five years. I frankly didn't even know the guy was still around. I didn't know where he was, what he was doing.

I heard a rumor that he was at the assembly and then things are heated and feel intense.

And then all of a sudden you hear, you know, Mr. Moderator, oh, Palmer, Palmer Robertson.

And he gets up and gives this five minute speech in favor of the amendment. I recommend everybody go and watch that video.

And it was a great speech. It was just perfect timing. And I think it helps sway the assembly.

Shortly thereafter, we had the vote and it passed. And so that was just a big time speech from, you know, kind of legendary figure in the

Presbyterian world. Mr. Moderator, Palmer Robertson, Piedmont Triad Presbytery.

Mr. Moderator, we could quote a famous statement.

There is a tide in the affairs of men and say there's also a tide in the affairs of churches.

And that tide rises when the culture demands a response.

Over the past 25 years, I have had the privilege of serving in a country in Africa where the parliament passed the death penalty for homosexuality, which is somewhat of an extreme.

Coming back every five years over these past 25 years,

I have seen the drift. First, all the sitcoms of one year were homosexually oriented.

Not just many sins, not different kinds of sins, but specifically homosexual sins.

Then there was laughter, the introduction of laughing over this matter, not of any particular sin except homosexuality.

And then I come five years later and now there is a celebration of a marriage here and there of homosexuals, specifically that particular item.

And now we're moving toward a position in which it would become very difficult.

And in some countries in England, where I have visited on occasion to even read the

Apostle Paul, Romans chapter one in public, and you can be arrested.

What is it in Romans chapter one that is stressed so strongly here as Paul is trying to establish the need of humanity?

He says, therefore, and he begins to specify, and what is it that he specifies?

God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Men exchanging their natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

Men committed indecent acts with one other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Mr. Moderator, you never hear the word perversion anymore. It used to be that you could speak of sodomy and sodomites.

That is a specification of a sin in the Old Testament that is just as relevant for today.

And though with all love and here, if we are to save those who are captured by this sin, then we must speak that wonderful word, the first word of salvation, which is repent.

Repent of what? Repent of that specific sin that is the one that is pressing the wedge between truth and behavior and untruth in the totality of our culture today.

And so, Mr. Moderator, I would urge us to respond.

You know, in history, you will see that there is this floating, this movement along in history, and then somewhere something cuts the line and says, this far and no mother, no further.

And then everyone reads the history and says, why, of course, that line should have been drawn right there.

And that's where we are today. Somewhere we must draw the line about this specific item of homosexuality.

And if we are to draw it in any line in the public eye, it would be with respect to the ordained minister of the

Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore, Mr. Moderator, I would speak in favor of this amendment or this motion.

Do you think that that made a difference? I think it helped. And we can't know for sure, but it seemed like it did.

Wow. I didn't even know he was in the PCA until he stood up. Sean, I mean, that's helpful,

Zach. But Sean, what do you think is going to happen, though? This stuff has passed, but the way that the

Presbyterian Church works is very different than the SBC. This has to go get confirmed by the churches, right?

Yeah. So what will happen is it will have to be approved by at least two -thirds of the

Presbyterians. And then if it does, then it has to be voted on one more time next year, and it just needs a simple majority.

So I'll tell you what I think will happen. Doesn't necessarily mean it's what

I want to happen. I think that Overture 29 has a really good shot at passing the

Presbyterians. I think Overture 15 will be a fight.

But I don't—put it this way. If Overture 23 didn't pass last year,

I'd be shocked if Overture 15 does. I mean, I'd be happily shocked, but I will be shocked because there will be people that fight against this hard.

And I think, again, going back to the vote, 54 percent is not that much.

But I think I would be careful to conclude from that that the people that voted against it did so because they disagree with the substance of the

Overture. But in conversation with people, you know, it was clear that some people didn't vote for it simply because, kind of going back to what we said, one,

Overture 29 they thought was superior. They did not—others didn't want to—they didn't like the specificity simply because they didn't think that if we amend this and it gets into our

Constitution, well, what happens again when the next issue comes up? Overture 15 is so specific that it doesn't cover transgenderism.

It doesn't cover any other grievous sins. So are we going to have to amend the

Constitution again to the point where, you know, you have this growing BCO that deals with every ideology and every grievous sin that tries to sneak its way into the

PCA? And there are good brothers that disagreed with that argument too. So I would just be careful not to conclude from that that, you know, almost half of the

PCA agrees in substance with—disagrees in substance with Overture 15.

There were multiple reasons why people voted against it. I like it.

I loved Palmer Robertson's speech. There were a couple others that spoke in favor of it too.

But, you know, I just—I'm not convinced that it will actually pass the presbyteries.

Overture 29 has a very strong shot of passing, but we'll see what happens with O15.

Like I said, if I could chime in there, John, I think the problem with 29 is it doesn't—it only partially addresses the problem, right?

So it addresses the fallen desires issue, which needs to be addressed. And I'm actually surprised we got 95 % there.

So I don't know, you know, what exactly is going on. But it doesn't address this language of gay

Christian or homosexual Christian, which—so the PCA had a study report on this that came out a couple years ago.

And it even had—I was seeing some quotations from it, how it says this language is at least unwise, right?

So that a Christian should not call himself a homosexual Christian. And we could think of biblical support, right?

1 Corinthians 6, right? Paul lists a bunch of not just sins, but like identities, right?

Drunkards, homosexuals, down the line. And such were some of you, but you've been washed, you know, sanctified, justified in Christ.

So you're not to identify by these terms anymore. You don't describe yourself as them.

It's unwise. It's unbiblical. And so why would we have office holders using this language for themselves?

That's the whole point of this. And that's what Palmer Robertson was getting at, is we're specifically addressing officers.

We're not talking about people in the pew. We're talking about our pastors and elders. Now, let me—to make this,

I think, even a bigger deal, Greg Johnson tweeted, I think this was a day or two ago.

And he said, yesterday, my denomination, the PCA, voted to approve an amendment to our constitution, he's referring to Overture 15, designed to remove me from ministry.

That's what he said. He said, Overture 15 is designed to remove me from ministry. And then he quotes it.

And he says, it still has to be ratified by two -thirds of the regional presbyteries, so pray it dies there. And then he just said,

I forgot what he commented about. Unbelievable. That's what it is, when he saw that 54%.

So the implication here is Johnson actually refers to himself as a homosexual

Christian, which he's denied elsewhere. So this is why this is such a big problem. That's what

I'm pointing out here. Well, I want to just talk about the—okay, so Sean, you talked about the likelihood of this actually passing and the motivations behind those who might have even voted against it.

But one of the things that I've heard is that even when you get a victory like this, in a sense, it's very hard to get it ratified because of the way the

PCA is set up, where you have some, I guess, regions that vote, or presbyteries that might be composed of two churches, and they're more progressive, and their vote is equal to conservative places that have 15 churches or more.

Is that true? Is that part of the structural issue that conservatives have to overcome?

I'm not sure. I'm not aware of a presbytery that has one or two or three churches.

But it is true that there are presbyteries that have a large amount of churches, and some have less churches.

But those are more confined to the cities, the urban areas.

And there's a few of those, but I don't think there's that many.

You got your metro Atlanta, metro New York, those big centers like that.

But if you go back and you actually break down the numbers of the votes in the presbyteries for Overture 23 in particular, some of those presbyteries voted the

Overture down by one or two votes. It was very slim.

So, is there a potential that if there's more elders that show up in this context for Overture 15, that one presbytery that voted down Overture 23 could vote up Overture 15?

That's a possibility, especially when you're talking about those slim margins for some of those presbyteries that voted against it.

I just think people are wondering, why is it that you can pass Overture 23 at the

General Assembly and then the presbyteries themselves won't ratify it? That's the disagreement or just the thing that people are trying to rectify in their minds.

How in the world does that happen? There seems to be a difference there. I think the reality is that a lot more officers or commissioners can get to their presbytery meeting as opposed to get to the

General Assembly because it costs and travel. One church say that, like take my church for example, if I could not bring any of my elders or even one of my elders to GA just because of time and travel and all that stuff.

But for presbytery, I can bring my full slate. I can bring two of them. For some churches, it's three. For some churches, it's more than that.

Then you have more votes at the presbytery level than you do the General Assembly level. So, a lot more ruling elders perhaps show up to presbytery and a lot even teaching elders show up to their presbytery meetings as opposed to showing up to the annual assembly meeting.

This is the interesting thing to me is in the SBC, it's the same problem but reverse where there's conservative churches but they don't have the resources or it's not the priority to show up to their convention and then vote.

So, the progressives end up running it. But it sounds like it's almost an inverse problem in the

PCA to some extent. Well, I would say that that could be one of the reasons for the disparity.

But on the flip side, it's the same for conservative churches too. Conservatives may be able to only send a few of their elders or maybe some conservative pastors can't get to the assembly, but they can get to presbytery meetings.

So, how much of an issue is that? I don't know because it can happen on both sides.

But in general, more commissioners are able to get to their presbytery than they can the assembly.

I would be curious. This is just me as an outsider spitballing, but I would be curious whether or not some of the progressives that are operating in the denomination have more authority in their minds or more influence on the presbytery level than they do the national level.

And so, their influence is diminished when everyone gets together for the general assembly.

But when everyone goes back home, they're kind of the big rooster in their presbytery.

And they can, I don't know. But that would seem to account for that disparity.

And it's not a big disparity, but it's significant enough to change things after they get past the

GA. I would say Zach could probably speak to that more than I could. I'm in Gulf Coast Presbytery.

I mean, it's definitely the case where there's some presbyteries that are just more progressive.

And so, yeah, I think the dynamics at the presbytery level are different than at the

GA. You also have a higher standard for things to pass at the presbytery level.

It's two -thirds instead of 50%. But another dynamic

I think is that, and this is good, it's hard to change the

BCO because we don't want things just done quickly without getting thought.

And so, just because it's passed at the assembly level, you still have months or actually a whole year before it would come up for another vote.

So that maybe the assembly would change its mind. But between that time, the presbyteries are debating these issues.

So, a lot of things happen quickly at the General Assembly. I mean, you're given things ahead of time, but you're often not seeing the final overture until you get to the floor, the exact language, and then we're debating it there.

And so, it is a good thing that this takes time and has to go through the presbyteries.

And so, like I said, there are different dynamics there. It's kind of like how the states function with the

Electoral College, it's just different. But these things get to get hammered out.

And I'm hopeful that we can actually increase the support for 15 by making a strong case for it that wasn't made before.

So, rather than being pessimistic about it, I think we can be hopeful. But so, this is just the way of our polity.

Well, another encouraging thing for conservatives, in case you... Are we done talking about those issues or do you want to say anything else before we get to Overture 26?

Oh, the only quick thing I would mention is Overture 8, Disciplinary Procedure, passed.

And this is somewhat related to these same things because the current

BCO allows two presbyteries to petition the SJC, which is the

Standing Judicial Committee. It's kind of like the Supreme Court of our denomination. It's the highest court.

So, those two presbyteries can petition the SJC to take up a case for failure to act, but that's kind of unclear and it's never really used.

And so, you had a lot of BCO guys like polity wonks, we could call them, who are pushing this.

They said, look, this would be an improvement where the language is failure to indict either at the presbytery level of a minister or the session level of a elder.

And if 10 % of the courts petition the higher court, then that court would have to assume original jurisdiction if there was a failure to indict.

So, this seems to be aimed at presbyteries that would protect ministers. It's a way for other courts to go after them.

So, it's an interesting change. We don't need to get into all the details. Just know there is other stuff in the works.

Okay. Overture 26 condemning political violence. The first thing that I thought was how in England they referred to the

American Revolution as the Presbyterian Revolt and how this would be seemingly in conflict with that.

But it seems to be a statement against the January 6th situation specifically, and it failed.

And so, you want to talk about that, either one of you? So, Overture 26 condemned political violence.

I would say there was some good content in there. Something that stood out to a lot of commissioners was that it condemned unlawful violence.

And so, what does unlawful refer to? So, just because something's civilly unlawful, then

Christians can't partake in it. So, this was too vague. People started bringing up examples of the

American War for Independence, which, I mean, you could argue that's legal. But still, there's a history of armed resistance within reformed and Presbyterian history.

And this stuff's not that simple to just make a sweeping condemnation of political violence.

I believe the minority report was trying to modify the language, but they removed unlawful.

But it wasn't clear from what I was reading. And so, this really seemed like, though they were citing things on both sides of the political aisle, it seemed like January 6th was the target.

And I think a lot of people realized that or at least interpreted it that way. And so, this failed.

Only about 35 % voted in favor. So, it failed. Gotcha.

And so, that's significant to me. That says that, if anything, that the

General Assembly is, the conservatives do have the upper hand there. But you do have a significant minority of progressives in the denomination that want to see change.

And so, there's a fight. And it sounds like it's going to keep going, especially with this Overture 41 that has yet to be debated there.

I mean, what are your thoughts leaving it? Are you encouraged? Do you feel as though the denomination is going on a good trajectory?

What do you think? Sean, why don't we start with you? I'll just say, yeah, I left encouraged.

This Assembly was a little bit different than last year's in some of the logistics. I mean,

I think someone said that before the Assembly started, three of the staffers that were helping, coordinated at the

Convention Center, resigned three days before. And it was just, you know, there was an issue with voting devices.

I mean, there was a lot of complications. You know, the first day, Zach, you remember, the lights went out for like, for like, you know, a minute or so.

And it was just, so, you know, on the whole, the Convention Center did a wonderful job. But there were, those complications kind of added to the mix a little bit, not really knowing which way this

Assembly was going to go. But I think overall, there's a good trajectory.

And, you know, I think we need to take the fight to the Presbyteries and make the case for Overture 29 and Overture 15 and, you know, make the case the best we can.

But I think overall, there's a good trajectory going. We're not the SBC, brother.

Yeah, yeah. And that's good to hear, because I think... So come on over. Come on over.

Yeah. So I have to finish reading this, right?

And then I'll get back to you. There it is. There we go. Well, you know, that's good to hear.

And I am glad. I think after the SBC stuff, I was, you know, just thinking that, well, it's over, kind of.

This is kind of where all the institutions in Christianity and evangelicalism are going. But there's a fight.

There's a real fight going on in the PCA. And I'm thankful that brothers like you are going and keeping an eye on things.

And I mean, even getting elected to the Board of Covenant College and, you know, really having an influence.

What can Christians do, specifically PCA members and ministers? Do you think better? Or what would you like to see them do to have even more of an influence on the denomination?

Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. I would say, you know,

I would strongly encourage PCA members to get involved in the broader church.

You know, I think sometimes we can get, you know, we're a connectional church. So local churches aren't autonomous.

Local churches aren't independent. We're connected. So PCA members should care about what goes on at the presbytery level.

They should care about their pastor and what his views are, and how he's participating in the presbytery level and the

General Assembly level. You know, we should encourage our pastors to be churchmen in every court of the church,

GA, presbytery, and their local session. So I think if members took a stronger interest in what goes on in the broader life of the denomination, that would be a very, very healthy thing for them to do.

Gotcha. I would also add, you know, that members of PCA churches, you know, it does matter how they view the

PCA and how their pastors and elders view it. And there's been a lot of men, good men, who have gotten frustrated with things, and they've wanted to leave and have left.

And so we've lost some, you know, good confessional pastors and churches to, you know, they just want to leave the

PCA. And I think, you know, Sean would agree with me here. You know,

I love the PCA. I've been in it for a number of years as a member. And, you know,

I have a lot of good friends in the PCA. And so it's a fairly large denomination, you know, in the

Reformed world, especially. It's far bigger than, you know, most Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.

And so I think it's worth fighting for. It's something we want to see improve and, you know, grow as a denomination and remain faithful amidst cultural pressure.

And it's easy to jump ship. And, you know, you're going to have problems in every denomination.

I mean, you know, even some of these smaller churches, smaller denominations, they still have issues.

And even if they're, you know, more biblically faithful, to some extent, you know, it's easier because you're small.

It's hard when your denomination is bigger, you know, a national church like the PCA. And so I think

PCA members should be committed to the PCA, encourage their pastor and elders to attend

Presbyterian meetings, to attend General Assembly, and to stay active in some of these issues that we face, you know, because this is often what happens, right, is you have good pastors and elders and churches, and they just don't, they don't pay attention to what's going on, you know, at the higher level or core of the denominational level.

And then things start to get lost. And so that's one of the great things that's happening right now is, you know, just to mention a couple other things is the committees,

I think, did it, there was a lot of guys getting, good guys getting on these committees. And that's how, you know, you get some change at some of these nomination or positions that come up, you know, so Sean's now going to be on the

Board of Covenant College, which is great. You've got other positions like that, that are important. And so we can really, you know, reform the

PCA by staying and fighting and trying to keep the church faithful.

Praise God for that. Yeah. And well, keep us informed.

Let us know kind of what's happening as this unfolds until the next, when's the next General Assembly?

Is it a year from now? Yeah, I think it's, I think it's actually the second week in June next year, and it's in Memphis, Tennessee.

And then the following year, it's in Richmond, Virginia, which I'm very excited about.

Right, you're from that area. So yes, very cool. All right. Well, keep us informed. Let us know kind of what's happening there.

And I'm looking forward to seeing what the Lord does and how He uses you. And keep preaching the word.

Thank you so much for letting us know. Thanks, brother. Good to be with you, Sean. Thanks, Sean. God bless.