Editor’s Note: In March, TE Bill Reisenweaver resigned as chairman of the Ministerial Committee of the Presbytery of Florida and the Caribbean as an act of conscience in response to the Ad Interim Committee on Same-Sex Attraction. Previously, Bill served as Moderator and Chair of the Leadership Team for the presbytery. He chaired the Ministerial Committee for almost five years prior to his resignation. In the following interview with the Plumb Line, Reisenweaver explains why he could no longer serve in leadership in the EPC.
Plumb Line: Bill, what prompted you to resign as Chair of the Ministerial Committee for the Presbytery of Florida and the Caribbean?
Reisenweaver: lt was the report on same-sex attraction that caused me to resign. It was more of a conviction than a protest. My conviction was stirred by my study of celibate homosexuals and Scripture. It began several years ago when Greg Johnson’s transfer was put on pause for several years. I told my wife, “If this goes any farther, I can’t continue to serve.” When I saw the result of the AIC report, especially the pastoral letter, I felt it was violating my conscience.
Plumb Line: Why did you choose to resign now instead of waiting for General Assembly when we vote on the final report?
Reisenweaver: I think the Lord has made me an involuntary buoy. You know, when you are piloting a boat in heavy fog, you have these buoys with ringing bells and the buoy warns you to stay away from danger and disaster. Maybe my purpose in making this decision was to be a ringing bell. I wasn’t optimistic when I shared my critique with the Ad Interim Committee, and none of it has shown up in the revisions. It hasn’t changed at all. If they really wanted to make revisions, they should have done that earlier in October, but now we’re in the eleventh hour. It is too late for revisions
Plumb Line: You have written a critique of the AIC recommendations. In particular, you focused on the pastoral letter. Briefly, what do you think is wrong with the pastoral letter?
Reisenweaver: When I got to the pastoral letter, it stopped me in my tracks. First, it has a strategic flaw because they are attempting to use a general letter on sexuality to make it into a document on ordination. Second, it is exegetically flawed. It misuses Scripture. For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, they take the aorist verbs in Greek, “You were washed, you were justified, you were sanctified …” and they change them to, “You are being washed, you are being justified, you are being sanctified.” They change the translation from the past tense to the present tense. The third problem is they neglect relevant Scriptures. One example is Ephesians 5:3: “Sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” Specifically, in the pastoral letter there is a section where they say it is unwise to call yourself a gay Christian. It is not unwise, it is a sin to call yourself a gay Christian and name yourself with that sin. Third, the pastoral letter is theologically flawed. It does not deal with Biblical teaching on church membership or for ordination for church office. The conclusion of the pastoral letter, which is very clearly stated on page 19, says that same-sex attracted candidates may be accepted for church office. This conclusion is disconnected from vague references to Scripture on page 3. Also, it violates the Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, paragraphs 6 and 10, where it says we reject the traditions of men: “Nothing at any time is to be added whether by new revelation by the Spirit or the traditions of men.” The theological conclusion (of the pastoral letter) does not match their Biblical argument, because it is leaning on the traditions of men and not on Scripture. The Westminster Standards tell us that the final authority of all church councils is Scripture itself. The pastoral letter conflates mortification of sin as a progressive part of sanctification. My fourth point is the Pastoral Letter has a prophetic flaw. In Deuteronomy 18:20, Moses teaches that a prophet should never presume to speak a word in the Lord’s name that He has not spoken. Finally, the pastoral letter has an ecclesiastical flaw. It would make the work of the Ministerial Committee untenable.
Plumb Line: Why would the pastoral letter make the work of the Ministerial Committee untenable?
Reisenweaver: Right now, the Ministerial Committee can ordain a same-sex attracted candidate and be subject to discipline in the church. If this pastoral letter is approved, the ministerial committee will be able to ordain a SSA candidate and be under the cover of the pastoral letter and not be subject to discipline. My colleagues were unaware of that. I told them, “This will allow a presbytery to ordain a same-sex attracted candidate and not be disciplined for it.” The pastoral letter provides cover for such candidates.
Plumb Line: All of us are sinners in need of God’s grace and forgiveness. Why is it wrong to ordain celibate homosexuals? What is the problem with this particular sin?
Reisenweaver: That is a logical fallacy. First, we’re talking about a same-sex attracted person who identifies himself as such, without being repentant. Also, homosexuality is labeled in Scripture as an abomination in Leviticus 18. Not all sins are abominations. Idolatry is an abomination, but stealing, murder, and false testimony are not called an abomination. The other text is Romans 1:26: “So God gave them over to dishonorable passions …”. This is not a sign of someone going through the process of sanctification. It is a sign of someone who has not been redeemed.
Plumb Line: You left the PC(USA) 15 years ago over the issue of homosexuality. Is it disturbing to see the same issue surfacing now in the EPC?
Reisenweaver: Absolutely. And what is disturbing is that it is coming in the same way. The report is making its conclusion based on humanism and human logic, not on Scripture. I heard exactly the same misuse of Scripture being quoted at our last presbytery meeting when we were leaving the PC(USA). It was the Scripture about the woman caught in adultery. The AIC presenter quoted Jesus as saying, “Neither do I condemn you,” but he left out the sentence where Jesus says, “Go and sin no more.” It was not quite a PTSD moment, but I had the feeling like I had been here before. When the AIC presenter said that same-sex attracted candidates can be ordained to office, I asked, “What Scripture gives you the authority to say that?” He had no answer to that question.
Plumb Line: You attended the recent presbytery meeting in Puerto Rico where a representative of the AIC presented their report. What did you think of the presentation?
Reisenweaver: I would use the word “disingenuous.” The primary reason is that the presenter mentioned the Keller/DeYoung statement. Three times that was used as a way to get conservatives to agree, but what was stated is that the work of the AIC goes a lot farther than the Keller/DeYoung document as if it is much more conservative. The reason why that is not true is that Keller and DeYoung were addressing pastoral responses to issues of human sexuality. It had nothing to do with church membership or ordination. The pastoral letter is about ordination The AIC borrowed one of those statements from Keller/DeYoung, “It is unwise for a same-sex attracted person to call himself a gay Christian.” They used that to garner support for their work. I think if Kevin DeYoung knew they were using his work to advocate for the ordination of same-sex attracted candidates, he would reject that. They are taking him out of context. Also, the presenter’s discussion on mortification of sin disturbed me. His comment was, “Well, I have sins that I mortify and they keep coming back.” And I replied, “Doesn’t mortify mean killing them? Aren’t you really just putting your sins on the shelf and coming back to them later? That isn’t mortification.” Also, the presenter said that all of the members of the AIC are totally unanimous with the wording of these documents. Why is there no minority report? It is not unusual to have a minority report and yet no one on that committee expressed opposition to this report. That struck me as odd.
Plumb Line: Are you concerned that the EPC is heading in the wrong direction?
Reisenweaver: I can’t speak in general on that issue but yes, we are entering a new period of arguing from human reason rather than from Scripture.
Plumb Line: What has been the response to your resignation?
Reisenweaver: The most common response has been no response, except for, “I’m sorry you are leaving.” I did have a ruling elder contact me. He had never heard of the Ad-Interim Committee on Same-Sex Attraction, so I sent him the documents. Another of my colleagues said, “I never really read those documents. I was just trusting the process.”
Plumb Line: Do you plan to keep your ordination in the EPC or will you transfer to another denomination?
Reisenweaver: I plan to keep my ordination in the EPC, but I will no longer attend presbytery or serve on committees of presbytery.
Leave a Comment