How the AIC Improperly Frames the Question
By David Weber
TE, New River Presbytery
The current discussion surrounding ordination and same-sex attraction has largely been framed in terms of degree. How much homosexual desire is too much? At what point does temptation become disqualifying? Is there a tolerable level of struggle that may be present in a candidate for office? And how might we discern that level?
This framing, however, asks the wrong question. The issue before us is not one of degree, but of kind. The question cannot be “How much homosexual desire is compatible with ordination?” But rather, “Is homosexual desire compatible with ordination?” This is not a dial to be calibrated but a verdict to be rendered.
The Problem with a “Dial” Approach
The Ad Interim Committee (AIC) report has attempted to address homosexual desire and ordination by distinguishing between various levels:
- Desires that lead to sinful behavior.
- Desires that lead to lustful temptations.
- Desires that are present but are not repented of.
- Desires that are present but are repented of.
In doing so, the AIC rightly excludes certain levels of temptation as incompatible with ordination. Yet it stops short of excluding homosexual desire altogether. The report allows for candidates currently experiencing homosexual desires so long as this desire is resisted and repented of. But why have they drawn the line there? Why not require our candidates for ordination to be completely free of homosexual sin?
Ostensibly, the committee is concerned that requiring complete freedom from homosexual sin is demanding a kind of perfection that we do not require in other areas of the Christian life. And this apparent concern is understandable. Our Reformed theology rightly affirms the ongoing struggle with sin even in the most mature of believers. Sanctification is progressive and life-long. Even the apostle Paul in Romans 7 speaks of his continuing battle against sin.
On the surface, then, the AIC’s caution seems wise. To require the total absence of homosexual desire appears to set the bar too high. If we require the complete absence of sin in one area, what will keep us from requiring it in other areas of life as well?
But this reasoning depends entirely on the assumption that all sinful desires belong to the same category. As such sins differ only in intensity, not in kind.
However, that is clearly not the case with homosexual sin — and the AIC knows it.
A Question of Kind, Not Degree
Scripture and our Confessional standards give us reason to distinguish between types of sin, not merely their severity (WLC 150,151). In Romans 1:24–27, homosexual desire and behavior are described as “against nature.” This is not merely another example in a list of sins. It is presented as a particularly vivid expression of rebellion against God as Creator. Similarly, Jude 7 speaks of sexual immorality that pursues what is “unnatural.” The language is not incidental. It highlights a violation of the created order itself.
The Westminster Larger Catechism, in Question 139, follows this Biblical pattern by grouping “sodomy” and “unnatural lusts” together, drawing on these very texts. What unites these sins is not simply their intensity, but their character. By their very kind they transgress the boundaries established in creation.
This category of unnatural lusts includes sexual desire and behavior in the following categories:
- Man with man (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7)
- Woman with woman (Romans 1:26)
- Human with animal (Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15–16; Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 27:21)
Each represents a departure from the created design of one man and one woman. These are not distortions of a natural end; they are rejections of that end altogether. And are completely antithetical to God’s created design. It is to go after flesh that is not fit to proper created order nor purposes. As such they represent the height of disobedience against God as Creator. This is what makes them “unnatural.”
Natural Desires and Their Corruption
By contrast, other sins are corruptions of something good and natural.
- Sexual desire between a man and a woman may be misdirected into fornication or adultery, yet it still corresponds to a God-ordained end.
- The enjoyment of food may become gluttony, yet eating itself is a gift.
- Anger may become sinful, yet there is such a thing as righteous anger.
- The use of alcohol may be abused, but Scripture speaks of it as a blessing.
In each of these cases, the desire itself has a proper and lawful fulfillment. The problem lies in its misdirection or excess. But this is not true of homosexual desire.
There is no circumstance in which such desire finds a God-blessed end. It cannot be rightly ordered, only denied. It is not the overextension of something good, but a movement away from the good itself. That is a difference not of degree, but of kind.
The Implications for Ordination
If this distinction holds, then it follows that homosexual desire cannot be treated like other ongoing struggles with sin.
Ordination requires that a man be above reproach, an example to the flock, and sound in life as well as doctrine. The question is not whether he is entirely free from sin but whether, by God’s grace, his life accords with God’s design in a way that is exemplary to the flock.
When it comes to natural desires, we do not disqualify a man for possessing them, even though they may be occasions for temptation. A single man is not required to repent of his desire for a wife even though it might lead to lustful thoughts. A man is not required to repent of enjoying a meal or a drink, even though it might lead to gluttonous indulgence or drunkenness. A preacher is not required to repent of desiring to make his living from the gospel even though it might lead to a love of money.
Why not? Each of these desires could give rise to sin. But they are not disqualifying in and of themselves because these desires have natural and lawful ends.
But if a desire has no lawful end. If it is, by its nature, disordered. Then its presence is itself a moral issue, not merely its expression. That is the case with homosexual desire.
An Inconsistency in Practice
It is worth noting that even those who advocate for a “degree” approach implicitly recognize this distinction of kind.
The AIC insist that homosexual desire must be repented of, even when not acted upon. Yet they do not say the same about heterosexual desire. Why not?
Because they know that heterosexual desire, in itself, is not sinful. It is part of God’s good design.
This reveals an underlying inconsistency. On the one hand, the AIC report treats homosexual desire as sinful. On the other hand, it is treated as if it were simply like any other sin that may be present in an officer’s life to a certain degree.
Both cannot be true at once.
If homosexual desire is indeed a distinct kind of sin. If it is one that is “against nature.” Then it cannot be evaluated on a sliding scale. Its presence cannot be normalized as one struggle among many.
The Danger of the “Middle Way”
History offers a sobering lesson here. When a church adopts a “dial” approach to issues of this kind, the dial rarely remains fixed. It tends to move up. Some might say the dial becomes a ratchet.
Standards loosen over time. Categories expand. What was once tolerated reluctantly becomes accepted openly and even celebrated.
The AIC report, by introducing gradations and gray areas, creates precisely this dynamic. It attempts to hold a middle position, but in doing so, it establishes a framework that can be exploited.
Even now, there are those who would use such a framework to argue for broader acceptance, including positions associated with “Side B” theology and candidates such as Greg Johnson. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history and to deny man’s depravity. The EPC is not especially sanctified, with no temptation toward accommodation with the world. If the mechanism for accommodation is created it will be exploited. If the issue is treated as one of degree, the debate will not end. It will only shift to new thresholds and new definitions.
A Clearer Path
What, then, is needed? Clarity.
If homosexual desire is a form of “unnatural” desire, then it must be addressed as such. The church must decide whether it will accept or reject it as compatible with ordained office. A verdict must be rendered.
This stance is not about demanding perfection. It is about recognizing the nature of the issue before us.
The proposed overture seeks to provide that clarity:
Persons eligible for church office shall conform in heart, mind, and conduct to God’s design for human sexuality… Those who profess, persist in, or identify with unnatural desires or affections… are disqualified from holding office in Christ’s Church.
This language does not introduce a novel standard. It simply applies a longstanding Biblical and confessional distinction.
Conclusion: Switch, Not Dial
In the end, the question is straightforward. Will we treat this issue as a matter of degree, to be measured and managed? Or will we recognize it as a matter of kind, requiring a clear judgment? A dial invites endless adjustment. But ordination is not a matter of calibration, it is a matter of qualification.
The church must determine not how much, but what is present. For the sake of faithfulness, clarity, and the peace of the church, this issue cannot become a sliding scale. It must be one or the other. In bounds or out of bounds. Our yes must be yes, and our no must be no.
Leave a Comment