No, It’s Not “Just A Question”
The Debate Over Ratifying the PC(USA)’s Olympia Overture
IT’S NOT PERSONAL, IT’S JUST BUSINESS
At the 226th General Assembly, a number of important issues facing the Presbyterian Church (USA) were discussed and advanced. One issue among the rest became a focal point of discussion and debate — even long before the Assembly itself convened. I am of course referring to the so-called Olympia Overture (POL-01 OVT-001) that sought to and was successful in proposing two amendments to our Book of Order regarding F-1.0403 and G-2.0104b, which details our policy of Unity and Diversity and our standards of ordination, respectively. These amendments (which will be referred to as 24-A and 24-C, respectively) now await ratification by presbyteries across the nation, and if a majority vote is obtained, 24-A and 24-C will become actionable and enforceable when the next Book of Order (2026–2028) is adopted.
First, it’s important to recognize the positive value of the Olympia Overture before we debate it. For far too long, members of the LGBTQIA+ community have been marginalized or treated as second-class members of the Presbyterian Church. Even though as a denomination we broadly affirm the marriage and ordination of queer and transgender people alike, these individuals are routinely met with resistance. To cite just a few examples, this resistance may come in the form of a colleague who won’t work with them, or a pastor nominating committee that will suddenly go silent as soon as a call-seeker shares their orientation, or from an elder who passive-aggressively resists their queer minister at every Session meeting. And these are just the mild cases.
So at the very least, we can appreciate how the Olympia Overture has started a denomination-wide conversation about the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ community and how they are being integrated into all aspects of the life of the Church. In fact, I suspect that even if the overture fails (which is unlikely), its failure will motivate some ministers to go ahead and ask the hard questions anyway on the floors of their presbytery. After all, every floor examination is generally open-ended, and virtually every topic pertaining to ministry is fair game. So, for every advocate who was hoping to shift the needle just a little bit — you’ve already won!
But it’s important to understand that for our queer and transgender siblings in Christ, the overture means a whole lot more than just a conversation-starter or needle-shifter. For them, the overture is shining a light on the LGBTQIA+ community’s continued struggle be accepted as complete equals when it comes to their worship, governance, and life in the Church. For this reason perhaps, many advocates of the overture felt that the 226th General Assembly was the time for all of us to start taking more responsibility over how we can each make a difference in helping everyone experience a sense of belonging and fulfillment in the Church.
Given all this, we need to approach the debate over the Olympia Overture with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), and with an aim to embrace all possibilities of being at peace with one another (Romans 12:18). I believe we can do this by dispensing with a binary mindset when it comes to judging each other’s case in favor or against the overture. By this I mean: we need to understand that the vast majority of the opposition to the overture is not rooted in homophobia, transphobia, or even apathy. Likewise, the vast majority of its advocacy is not rooted in some ulterior motive to ‘liberalize’ the PC(USA) even further and force conservatives out. Lodging these extremist accusations at one another gets us nowhere.
Tony Sundermeier — who is one of the most vocal critics of the Olympia Overture — pastors a church where members of the LGBTQIA+ community have been married, ordained, and fully welcomed and included as members and leaders of the congregation. On the floor of the General Assembly, members of the LGBTQIA+ community also spoke out in favor of watering down the Olympia Overture because they felt it was important for the PC(USA) to continue to be a ‘Big Tent’ denomination where it’s OK to ‘agree to disagree.’ So, if we can agree that this debate is not about hate and prejudice, but instead about ecclesiology, then we can go far in reaching a mutual and respected understanding even if we wind up disagreeing.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE
On the floor of the General Assembly, a significant addition was added to the G-2.0104b amended text, in that alongside F-1.0403, ordinands will also be asked to fulfill their commitment to the Historic Principles of Church Order (F-3.01). The amended form of the proposed change to G-2.0104b was seen partly as an olive branch to conservatives in the denomination who felt the original language of the overture was too forceful and potentially limiting their views, voices, and theological convictions. Interestingly enough, this amendment passed with a much narrower majority (216–192), which indicates that this is where the debate really lies.
One case that might set a precedent for us in this regard is Walter Kenyon (1974). When he was examined by his presbytery, he expressed a complementarian view of ordination. (In case you’ve forgotten what this view even means: Wayne Grudem defines complementarianism as “God created men and women equal in personhood and dignity but different in roles. These role distinctions are part of God’s good and wise plan for humanity and should be joyfully embraced in both marriage and church leadership” (Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 2004).) And so, for a denomination that is egalitarian on paper, Kenyon’s views were seen as discriminatory, and ultimately his ordination was rejected. (He eventually found a call in a PCA church.)
To support the notion that theological conviction cannot be used to mask discrimination, the 223rd General Assembly (2018) adopted “that religious freedom is not a license for discrimination against any of God’s people, and cannot justify the denial of secular employment or benefits, healthcare, public or commercial services or goods, or parental rights to persons based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or gender expression” (Item 11–04). It should be understood then, that should 24-A and 24-C become ratified, it would be entirely consistent for a council to rule against an individual if they expressed a view similar to Kenyon, which in this case would be a view that discriminates against persons according to their gender identity and sexual orientation. The precedent is clear on this.
THE SEARCH FOR MIDDLE GROUND
The Historic Principles of Church Order is a cornerstone of Presbyterian polity, and so it does us well to exercise these principles. Among them include articles pertaining to both freedom of conscience and mutual forbearance, which many interpret to be two of our biggest ‘tent poles’ that hold up ‘the Big Tent’ that is the Presbyterian Church (USA). These principles allow individuals to effectively ‘agree to disagree’ with one another, so long as those disagreements aren’t over the essentials of the Reformed tradition or over serious departures from our confessions or polity.
In a time when opinions about everything are becoming much stronger and partisanship is practically seen as virtuous, a willingness to ‘agree to disagree’ should be seen as a big deal. The Historic Principles of Church Order have allowed Presbyterians to congregate with one another even when they hold vastly different theological views. And so as I see it, we can try to conserve a wider space where issues can be joyfully held in tension, or progress towards a narrower space where issues are fearfully held in conflict. What do we want? Can we remain a denomination where some ministers and congregations remain steadfastly traditional and conservative, while others are full-bore progressive? Or, are we going to become a denomination where conservative theological convictions will be incrementally categorized as discriminatory?
If for example, an ordinand was asked about their views of marriage, and provided a response by using direct citations from the Confessions that expressed a traditional view of marriage, would we say the ordinand was being discriminatory? After all, if sexual orientation becomes a protected class, then upholding the traditional view of marriage and refusing to officiate a gay wedding would be considered de facto discrimination, would it not? Would a council vote against the ordinand just as they did against Kenyon?
For me these questions have little to do with how we define theological conviction and discrimination, but more to do with how we interact with our Book of Confessions. American culture has changed in such a way that the language in our confessions offer little instruction or guidance on the hot-button social issues relevant to us today. The phrases “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” are completely absent from the Book of Confessions; there is no point of reference for us to cite to provide clarity. This is a problem. Without the rudder that is our Confessions that instruct and guide us in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, we run the risk of letting the great ship that is the Presbyterian Church be blown by winds of public opinion, personal feelings, secular ideologies, and political agendas rather than the wind of the Holy Spirit, as discerned by thoughtful exegesis and prayer.
Until such a time that a new confession is adopted which may provide theological clarity on gender identity and sexual orientation, any presbyterian would be well within their right to express a theological conviction that is consistent with the Confessions as they stand today. Progressives and allies to the LGBTQIA+ community would hope that such convictions would align with a more ‘open and affirming’ view of ordination and marriage, but the reality is that neither councils nor ordinands are required to adhere to such views.
If we deign to vote against somebody because we consider their Confession-based theological conviction discriminatory, then we are not voting against this person but rather the Confessions. And, last time I checked, the Book of Order is supposed to be the orthopraxy that we derive from the Book of Confessions — not the other way around. Ratifying amendments 24-A and 24-C lays the groundwork for not only weaponizing our polity, but constitutionally dividing the house, which we know cannot stand (Matthew 12:25).
When people speak of ‘unforeseen consequences’ this is exactly what they are talking about. These people are worried that the amendments 24-A and 24-C will empower activist presbyteries to make it more difficult for conservatives to take new calls. These people are worried that merely answering these questions in public in front of their colleagues — even if a vote went in their favor — would potentially alienate them from some of their peers. These people are worried that our denomination will become increasingly more tribal and partisan, where for instance we might be known by and treated according to our affiliation with More Light Presbyterians or the Fellowship Community rather than our actual ministry and service to the Presbyterian Church.
If the intent and rationale for the Olympia Overture is to simply bring the denomination to a place where there is more clarity, honesty, and transparency, then why wasn’t amending G-3.0106 considered instead? In the administration of its mission, our denomination has required councils to adopt multiple policies and continually renew them. Why not, as a point of providing kind clarity, require councils to adopt a policy describing their decision-making rationale when it comes to the marriage and ordination of persons based on their gender identity and sexual orientation? This would allow everyone to know where every council exactly stood on these issues — thus eliminating the need for awkward and divisive floor examinations over individual ordinands.
I am not saying these conversations don’t need to be had, or that being more open and honest with one another isn’t good, or that we should stop working on trying to dialogue and reconcile with one another. Not at all. Rather, these conversations need to be had in private, between PNCs and COMs, between peers, between seminarians, and commissioners of every stripe. Having these conversations in the context of a floor examination gives off ‘judicial hearing’ vibes, not ‘safe space’ vibes. My worries cannot be alleviated by proponents of the Olympia Overture who say “come on man, it’s just a question, we just want to know where people stand.” We both know that’s not true. In the context of a floor examination, every question has a perceived ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer. Given that, we both know the risk of these questions turning into litmus tests. We mustn’t be that naive.
WHAT I’M SAYING IS…
I can appreciate and even agree with the need for increased denominational clarity over these important issues. This is important and noble work. However, amendments 24-A and 24-C will as a matter of course create the conditions for councils to apply double-standards upon ordinands when determining their suitability for ministry. We cannot in good conscience be led and guided by the Book of Confessions in one hand and then refer to a confessionally-derived theological conviction as discriminatory in the other. Until this denomination adopts a new confession or adopts a new GA resolution that provides guidance for how we can navigate this constitutional conflict, 24-A and 24-C will fall far short in accomplishing what they’re supposed to. On the contrary, it will just make the situation worse. For this reason, amendments 24-A and 24-C must be voted down.
Voting against 24-A and 24-C is *NOT* a vote against the welfare of the LGBTQIA+ community, but rather a vote against bad polity — plain and simple. It is a vote in favor of being willing to continue to do the work needed to bring about more unity and reconciliation in this denomination in ways that won’t incite more conflict. It is a vote that expresses “this was a good idea, but the plan of execution was flawed.” Most importantly of all: THIS VOTE IS *NOT* FINAL. Nothing is stopping us from going back to the drawing board, and trying again (perhaps with amending G-3.0106?) at the next GA. It’s always worth taking the time to do the right thing the right way.
WHERE THE CONFLICT REALLY LIES
Setting aside the debate over the polity dynamics of the Olympia Overture, I wanted to address the philosophical aspects of it — which are revealed and made plain by how advocates support and defend their rationale for approving it. To me this is the real, deeper issue at play.
When we are thinking about who we are as human beings both collectively and individually, there are many things we might say in order to describe ourselves. Among those descriptions, which of them are essential? Which of them could you dispense with? Which of them are necessary for self-actualization or human flourishing? Which descriptions are going to matter when you’re in Heaven? I believe how we answer these questions has a tremendous impact on the broader narrative we use when it comes to our identity.
When describing myself as a human person, it does not seem to me that my race, ethnicity, age, sex, ability, nationality, geographic location, gender identity, sexual orientation, or occupation is an essential part of who I am as a person. Each of these descriptions are in many ways tied to my behavior and how I express myself in a social setting, but I don’t find any of them to be necessary for my own personal self-actualization or human flourishing.
What I would say that is essential in describing who I am, to know me as I am as it were, is that my personhood is rooted and grounded in the fact that I am a beloved child of God, who bears the Image of God, who has been clothed in Christ, and who is held in His hands. I know this to be true, because the best version of myself — the version that is fully actualized and experiences flourishing — is the Christ-like version of myself. That is who I am.
What I see happening with increasing and alarming regularity in our culture is that our sense of identity in terms of how we talk about it and express it, has become engulfed by a dubious philosophical doctrine. This doctrine (as I understand it) asserts that in order to live your best life, in order to experience self-actualization or human flourishing, in order to live authentically as your true self, you must fully express your race, ethnicity, ability, nationality, geography, gender identity, and sexual orientation as you perceive it to be. Even Christians have been captivated by this philosophical doctrine. It is presumed and accepted to be true without critique.
For example, as you may find in the concurrences to the Olympia Overture — Mission Presbytery referred to “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” as “matters of core identity.” The advice and counsel from the Advocacy Committee for LGBTQIA+ Equity expresses a similar thought: “that alongside race, ethnicity, age, sex, [etc.], sexual orientation and gender identity are similarly fundamental dimensions of personhood.” Joining them, the board of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians also noted that the overture “[marks] the church’s full intention to support LGBTQIA+ people and celebrate their identities and gifts.” Each of these statements both confused and concerned me, because it’s my understanding that we only have one core identity or one fundamental dimension of personhood.
Additionally, if I may share my own observations of conversations on Facebook about the Olympia Overture, I have seen many people talk about the overture as though it is something which brings recognition of their personhood, that it promotes their human dignity, and/or that it validates their existence. These same people tend to view opposition to the overture in an extremely personal light, as an opposition to their personhood, dignity, and existence. The impression this gives me is that these people are thinking about their gender identity or sexual orientation as something that is essential to their personhood. Again, I find this to be confusing and concerning.
These semantics may seem trivial to you, but to me they are cause for deep reflection. How we talk about our human identity matters, and our semantics reveal a great deal about our worldview. So, I want to preface what I am about to say by stating that I am not opposed to the intent or the goal of the Olympia Overture. I am not opposed to its advocates or those who will be afforded protection by it. My struggle is not against flesh and blood, it’s not against people — or their dignity, worth, value. My struggle is against the philosophy of identity that drives the narrative behind the Olympia Overture. The idea that something other than the Imago Dei constitutes our essential personhood or fundamental identity is false; it is wrong; and, it is idolatrous!
We must be vigilant and repent of this error. As Paul wrote to the Church, he said “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8, NIV). Because the more you drink from the well of how the world identifies you, the less it’s going to satisfy. The solution is to embrace “a more radical obedience to Christ” (F-1.0404), for Christ tells us to “abide in me” (John 15:4) — NOT our race, ethnicity, age, sex, ability, nationality, geographic location, gender identity, or sexual orientation. We need to denounce all of these things as sources of personal meaning, value, and purpose. We need to cast them down as idols; we must reject them as sources of authority, supremacy, and privilege.
No amount of advocacy, activism, or polity-engineering is going to recognize your personhood, your human dignity, or validate your existence. Voting in favor or against the Olympia Overture will not change the truth that has already been revealed by God to us about such things. The recognition, equity, inclusion, dignity, liberation, reconciliation, validation, and unification that we all seek so desperately will not be achieved with resolutions, amendments, votes, or commitments.
A powerful and secure sense of our identity will only be achieved when “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). It will be achieved when we drink from the well of the Living Waters and rest in the knowledge that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that we bear the Image of God, that we are already loved, chosen, called, justified, equipped, gifted, blessed, and that we are held “so completely in God’s hand that without his will [we] can neither move nor be moved” (BOC, 4.028). Let’s start acting like it.
