Introduction

Recently, I sent a (brief, four-page) protest to our Presbytery in response to its recent action of instructing our clerk to forward to the magistrates Overture 12 (adjusted for our geography) regarding transgender procedures for minors. I believe the substance of the overture was true, biblical, and pertinent in our cultural moment. I also believe the men in our presbytery are good, conscientious men, some of whom probably have not had the privilege of studying the issues of church and state, or even our doctrine of “the spirituality of the church” as thoroughly as I have due to my academic duties. Such men probably were simply being cooperative; General Assembly’s stated clerk had sent the material to the presbyteries, requesting that the report be sent to the various state authorities, and they agreed to do so. I commend them for that cooperative spirit, a spirit that I have witnessed for many years, and especially in 2023 when I moderated the Presbytery. The disagreement I will describe is, in that sense, a cordial and respectful disagreement; I have no ill will for any of my fathers and brothers individually or collectively. What follows is merely a statement of conscience on my part, and if others find anything useful in it, that is fine. I have never before protested an action of our Presbytery in the twenty-plus years I have been here, and only do so in this case because I believe that the relations between the three God-ordained institutions—family, state, and church—are to be respected by all three, and that each of the three needs to be especially careful not to impinge upon the other two.

The cultural confusion about human sexuality that began in the 1960s has continued to develop in profoundly dehumanizing ways since then, and has more recently expressed itself in a virtual denial of human sexuality itself, especially in the widespread adoption or approval of transgenderism. It was and is wise for the shepherds of the church to take cognizance of these trends, and to offer clear and unequivocal instruction to those under the church’s jurisdiction on such matters. Overture 12, adopted by the 2023 Assembly, and the same Overture, slightly adapted to regional realities by the Presbytery of the Ascension on 27 January 2024, addressed the matter clearly and biblically. For substance, the Overture is to be applauded and commended for consideration by any who take interest in the scriptural testimony about human sexuality. Both the General Assembly and Ascension Presbytery are therefore to be commended for addressing the matter seriously and biblically. At the same time, I believe that both ecclesiastical bodies acted unconstitutionally in sending the Overture to the respective civil magistrates.¹ What follows in three parts are: a confessional consideration, several practical considerations, and a historical consideration.

I. Confessional Consideration

Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 31.4 says:

“Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.”

1. It would be preferable not to have to remind an ecclesiastical body what the term ecclesiastical means. American Heritage lists three definitions, none of which would permit General Assembly or Presbytery to have sent this Overture to the civil magistrate: “1. Of or relating to a church, especially as an organized institution. 2. Appropriate to a church or to use in a church. 3. Of or pertaining to the church; relating to the organization or government of the church; not secular.”² Overture 12 was not related to a church, especially as an organized institution. It was not appropriate to a church or to use in a church (but rather instructed the magistrates about members of the culture generally). Overture 12 was not related to “the organization or government of the church; not secular.” To the contrary, it was addressed precisely to the “secular” culture at large, and its governors.

Proof that this reading of “ecclesiastical” is the proper one in WCF 31.4 is this: had Evangel Presbytery not sent Overture 12 to the Assembly, and had the Assembly (and several presbyteries) therefore not taken the action of sending Overture 12 to the civil authorities, no one would have reasoned that General Assembly (GA) or Presbytery had neglected its “ecclesiastical” duties. Had GA not, for counterexample, reviewed Presbytery records, it would have neglected its “ecclesiastical” duties. Had GA not received and reviewed orderly complaints or appeals from lower courts, it would have neglected its “ecclesiastical” duties. Had it not given oversight to home and foreign missions, it would have neglected its “ecclesiastical” duties. But had it not uttered a single word about the tragedy of transgendering , it would not have neglected its “ecclesiastical” duties.

2. At the time our Confession of Faith was written, the Assembly was, at a minimum, theocratic, and many concur that it was Erastian. After all, the Westminster Assembly was called into existence by an act of Parliament to “vindicate” and clarify the doctrines of the Church of England. Its very existence and whatever it did was the result of an act of Parliament, an act of the civil magistrate. Their earlier words about the relation of church and state in WCF 23.3 were very different from what they would later become, after the American revisions of 1787/88. The original 1647 version said,

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses of worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God. (WCF 23.3, 1647)

The American revision, however, said,

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest in such a manner, that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging, every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. (WCF 23.3, 1787/88)

Note how they differ after the expression “kingdom of heaven,” around the fourth line into the first sentence. The original version says, regarding the magistrate, “yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church” (emphasis added), whereas the 1787 language says at this point, “or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.” It is evident (and, to my knowledge, undisputed) that the American Presbyterians desired to remove the last vestiges of theocracy and Erastianism, and to separate the civil and ecclesiastical authorities.³

3. Even in the original 1647 situation, however, the relation between church and magistrate was not equal, nor was their relation one of a dialogue. Even at the time when it was the magistrate’s presumed duty “to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses of worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled,” the reciprocal was not true. Even then, the church was far more restrained in its relation to the magistrate, as WCF 31.4 indicated:

Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

A. A. Hodge, in his Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, spoke very briefly about WCF 31.4 in four enumerated sections, the second and third of which describe its “purely ministerial and declarative” powers, and its appropriate power to “form creeds and confessions of faith.” His first and fourth comments address our concern:

1. Negatively. Synods and councils have no right whatever to intermeddle with any affair which concerns the commonwealth; and they have no right to presume to give advice to, or to attempt to influence, the officers of the civil government in their action as civil officers, except (1.) in extraordinary cases, where the interests of the church are immediately concerned, by the way of humble petition, or (2.) by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. . . . 4. Positively. While ecclesiastical courts have no right to handle or advise upon matters which belong to the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate, they, on the other hand, evidently possess an inalienable right of teaching church members their duty with respect to the civil powers, and of enforcing the performance of it as a religious obligation.⁴

A. A. Hodge placed the words, “in cases extraordinary,” in apposition to another clause that explained his understanding of those words: “where the interests of the church are immediately concerned.” Hodge was, of course, fallible; but his interpretation at least makes applicable sense of the operative expression, “cases extraordinary.” For Hodge, “cases extraordinary” are those “where the interests of the church are immediately concerned.” Other explanations have been either subjective (e.g., “I feel really strongly about this) or relative (“this is really evil”), and the effect of such understandings is to eviscerate the prohibition of intelligible or operative meaning.⁵ At least Hodge’s view was and is both intelligible and operative. It has real, practical meaning; whereas the various subjective understandings do not have and cannot have such operative or practical meaning.

Notes

1. It is likely that the entirety of the General Assembly agreed that trans-gendering procedures for children are grievous sins. The vote to approve Overture 12 would likely have been unanimous, therefore, had the Overture not included the language about communicating this to the civil authorities, and/or had the procedural motion not instructed the Moderator to appoint a Commission to reword the Overture. The vote itself (1,089–793) reflects that nearly 40% of the Assembly may have disapproved the Overture on one ground or another. It is also possible that addressing the cultural “world” rather than addressing the church may be thought of by some as flirting with disagreeing with the apostle Paul, who said, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside” (1 Cor 5:12–13).
2. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition (NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2022) s.v. “ecclesiastical.”
3. With the possible exception of several smaller Presbyterian communions, such as the ARP and the RPCNA. I am not a student of their constitutional histories, but I do know that the RPCNA adopts the 1647 version of the standards, not the later 1787 version.
4. Archibald Alexander Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession, 1869 reprint. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 377–378. Emphasis mine. See also Dr. R. Scott Clark, “‘Cases Extraordinary,’ The Spirituality of the Church, and the Trans Crisis,” Heidelblog, March 30, 2023.
5. If I am not mistaken, many within our communion take “cases extraordinary” to mean something like “when sins are especially or unusually heinous.” Our standards do recognize the category of “heinous,” which is used in the question and answer of Shorter Catechism 83, and in the questions and answers to Larger Catechism 150/151, the latter of which employs 261 words to address “aggravations” that make some sins “more heinous” than others. If this is indeed how some understand “extraordinary” in WCF 31.4, that we may address the magistrate in his oversight of citizens when the behavior in question has “aggravations” that make it more “heinous” than other sins, I would be willing to entertain the argument. The argument, however, would face difficulties. If, by “extraordinary,” the Assembly intended “heinous,” then why did they not use that language? Also, would the civil magistrate (or we) have ability or authority to address such matters as, “greater experience or grace . . . if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship . . . against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings . . . our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men . . . if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship.” The Assembly appears here to address a practical and pastoral matter, to alert us about the aspects of sin that are “more heinous in the sight of God than others.” Neither civil nor ecclesiastical authorities would have the ability to discern some of these matters, though it would be very valuable for individuals to use such guidance in examining their own behavior. A. A. Hodge’s understanding of “extraordinary,” while still requiring some act of judgment and wisdom, is much more manageable to describe circumstances when the God-ordained civil authority oversteps his provenance into the God-ordained ecclesiastical authority: “where the interests of the church are immediately concerned.”

©T. David Gordon. All Rights Reserved.

You can find this whole series here. 

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Of Semicolons And The Spirituality Of The Church
• ‘Cases Extraordinary,’ The Spirituality of the Church, and the Trans Crisis
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• T. David Gordon

  

  Dr. T. David Gordon is a teaching elder in The Presbytery of the Ascension. Before retirement, he taught at Gordon-Conwell Seminary (1984–98) and Grove City College (1999–2021).

  More by T. David Gordon ›