Listen to this article | Produced by ElevenLabs with an AI voice.
Between June 29 and July 4, 2024, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) met in Salt Lake City, Utah, to deliberate on a great number of issues of varying importance to the life of the denomination. Certainly, none has received more attention—not least from this publication—than POL-01, also known as the Olympia Overture, which seemed to threaten the continued existence of biblical orthodoxy in the PC(USA), especially around the issue of gender and sexuality. While what happened is fairly straightforward, what it means for the denomination and for individual congregations is less so.
What Happened
The original overture was split into two parts to allow them to be considered separately. The first part aimed to amend F-1.0403 in the Book of Order, titled “Unity in Diversity.” That section currently states:
“The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.“
The first part of POL-01 sought to add “gender identity and sexual orientation” to this “non-discrimination” list. This part passed 389 to 24 (94% to 6%), without anyone present speaking against it.
The second part of the overture sought to add teeth to the first part by requiring that every council, as part of its examination of candidates for ordination or installation, inquire into a candidate’s willingness to uphold “the principles of participation and representation found in F-1.0403.” The overture was further amended to include an examination regarding the “Historic Principles of Church Order” in F-3.01. After some discussion, this part passed 297 to 130 (70% to 30%).
Since the two parts of the overture were discussed and passed separately, both will be sent to the presbyteries for their vote within the next calendar year. If a simple majority of Presbyteries vote to approve them, then they will be incorporated into the PC(USA)’s Book of Order and take effect in July 2025. Importantly, all people in ordered ministries in the PC(USA) promise to uphold the polity of the PC(USA)—including, if they pass, these proposed amendments.
What It Means
This leads us immediately to several questions. What does it mean to uphold a non-discrimination policy regarding sexual orientation and gender identity in the life and leadership of the church? What is required by the obligation to ascertain a candidate’s ability and willingness to uphold the amended F-1.0403? Does the addition of the “Historic Principles of Church Order” to that obligatory conversation change the calculus at all? We are hearing different answers to these questions, depending upon the speaker and the audience being addressed.
What does it mean to uphold a non-discrimination policy regarding sexual orientation and gender identity?
Of these questions, the first is the most important. In fact, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution was at pains to remind commissioners several times during the discussion that this second part of the Olympia Overture is essentially redundant. Due to the vows all ordained officers take, they are required to uphold all of the Book of Order, whether a particular section is specifically listed or not. For this reason, the addition of the “Historic Principles of Church Order,” though intended as a “balancing” measure, makes absolutely no difference to the question at hand. The entire second half of POL-01, despite being more aggressive and attention-grabbing on the surface, is far less impactful than the inclusion of “gender identity and sexual orientation” in F-1.0304.
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution was at pains to remind commissioners several times during the discussion that this second part of the Olympia Overture is essentially redundant.
The challenge of opposing part 1 is that no one wants to be branded with the word “discrimination.” In fact, many who hold a biblically orthodox view of gender and sexuality are arguing that part 1 is not a problem because they are not discriminating against anyone. They would argue that no one in their churches is turned away from leadership because of the temptations they face but because of how they respond to those temptations —whether their temptations are sexual in nature or not. The Bible demands a great deal of those called to be leaders of the Lord’s Church. The truth of this logic is irrelevant: engaging in semantic arguments over the meaning of “discrimination” will not help us. The important thing is what a council or a permanent judicial commission would consider discrimination. For example, will it believe that asking all ordained officers to be faithful in heterosexual marriage or chaste outside of marriage is discrimination? If past judicial precedent is an indicator, it seems likely that the answer is yes.
The important thing is what a council or a permanent judicial commission would consider discrimination.
Many people are telling us that nothing has happened and that all this amendment requires is a conversation. During every examination, the question must be asked, are you willing and able to promise that you will strive to ensure that people of all ages, all races, both sexes, all gender identities, all sexual orientations, etc., have full access to the life and leadership of the church? These voices tell us that no particular answer is required and that the candidate will have equal freedom to answer “Yes” or “No.” They remind us that it is then the council’s job to determine whether or not the candidate’s answers are acceptable. In that sense, the “local option”, the ability of a council to choose its own leaders, remains intact, even if both parts of POL-01 become enshrined in our constitution. A presbytery, or, for that matter, a congregation, has always had the authority to reject a candidate for ordination for any number of reasons, both good and bad.
However, that is not to say that nothing has changed. What will be different if POL-01 passes is not so much a matter of what is forbidden or allowed. Rather, the PC(USA) will have a different standard by which what is acceptable is measured. Over the last decades, the normative view of sexuality has shifted away from the traditionally orthodox understanding to a decade where different views have been held more or less equally. Now, we are coming to a new understanding: one where open and affirming views of gender identity and sexual orientation are the norm, and biblically orthodox views are a departure that must be discussed and, potentially, accepted as a departure from that norm – or not.
In short, to say that nothing has changed is misleading. Certainly, something has changed. POL-01, as originally proposed, seemed intended to curtail the voice and influence of those who hold biblically orthodox views of human sexuality. And while the assembly may have meant to soften the original proposal, it remains to be seen how the text will be read and interpreted by Presbyterians in the future, particularly in the judicial process.
In short, to say that nothing has changed is misleading. Certainly, something has changed.
If POL-01 passes in a majority of the presbyteries, at the very least the traditional understanding of gender and sexuality will have been moved farther to the sidelines, farther outside the realm of mainstream and acceptable viewpoints held by PC(USA) officers. At most, the groundwork will have been laid to take it off the table entirely. What counts as discrimination? How long will what is essentially a scruple regarding gender identity and sexual orientation remain acceptable? When we look at the “non-discrimination” list already present in the Book of Order, we see that, in most cases, it is not acceptable for a candidate to express hesitation about them. For example, the famous result of the Kenyon case is that it is not permitted for an officer of the PC(USA) to be opposed to the ordination of women. Certainly the same holds true for many of the other categories on that list. How will these new categories be understood? We may not know until these questions are tried in the church courts.
What You Can Do
It cannot be said enough: the most important thing we can do is pray. Whatever happens, Jesus Christ remains the Lord of his Church and the Shepherd of his flock. Pray for your congregation, your leaders, and your presbytery. Pray for unity, peace, and an increase in holiness and love for the Kingdom of God. Friends outside the PC(USA) may also join with us in prayer.
Second, we can speak up. Not all of us will have voice, let alone vote, at the Presbytery meetings. However, we can speak supportively and lovingly to those who do. We can encourage them to speak and vote according to the truth. Whether they themselves hold orthodox views of sexuality or not, many understand that these measures do not include anyone who was previously excluded, may well lead to the exclusion of those previously included, elevate one issue over many more important issues, and certainly do not further the peace, unity, or purity of the church. And if you are an ordained officer of the PC(USA), you can make your own commitments public by signing Theology Matters’ pledge: Keeping Our Vows.
Pray for your congregation, your leaders, and your presbytery. Pray for unity, peace, and an increase in holiness and love for the Kingdom of God.
Finally, we can speak, vote, and pray to preserve a place for what we perceive to be the will of God for human beings without falling into a spirit of fear, bitterness, or anxiety. Our Lord, who holds all things in his hand, has already promised us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church. These discussions matter deeply, but in the end, the salvation of the church is not our burden to bear. 2 Timothy 1 reminds us, “For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love, and self-discipline” (v. 7). The passage continues:
“He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (vv. 9–10) [NIV]
Let’s live and work for his pleasure alone.
This statement was authored by The Rev. Sara Jane Nixon, Pastor of Crestview Presbyterian Church, on behalf of the Board of Theology Matters.
