The following is a response of the Presbyterian Plumb Line Editors (PPL) to amend or supplement answers provided by the Ad Interim Committee on Same Sex Attraction and Ordination Standards (AIC) in a May 26, 2026, email from the Office of the General Assembly with the subject “AIC on SSA and Ordination Standards FAQ.” This post contains the full text of the AIC FAQs with PPL Editors’ comments.
This is an FAQ from the Ad-Interim Committee on Same-Sex Attraction and Ordination Standards. We encourage all commissioners to the General Assembly to read our recommendations and report for themselves. You can find them at EPConnect.org and in the commissioner’s handbook. The following are brief answers to the main questions we have received about our recommendations.
Theological Framework
Q1: How does the Bible shape these recommendations?
A: Our recommendations are built upon the foundation of God’s Word. The Position Paper and Pastoral Letter rely heavily on scripture and both documents are chock-full of scriptural citations. Biblical passages that provided special guidance include Genesis 1-2; Jesus’ teaching on marriage, singleness, and adultery in the Gospels; Romans 1; Romans 7-8; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 2 Corinthians 12; Colossians 3; 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; and James 1:12-15. Christ’s teaching on temptation in the Lord’s Prayer and the Garden of Gethsemane, and then the commentary on the person of Christ and temptation in Hebrews 2 & 4 especially formed our recommendations.
PPL Reply: Romans 1 is mentioned, but the emphasis in Romans 1 should be verses 26 and 27 which state “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” This is the most pertinent text to the discussion of homosexuality. It should be noted that the temptation of Christ is very different from ours for, while he was tempted outwardly by the world and Satan, he had no internal temptations because he had no sin nature inherited from fallen Adam. As the second Adam he had no sinful human nature as do all other human beings.
Q2: How do our recommendations rely on the Westminster Confession and Catechisms?
A: The Westminster Confession and Catechisms contain the system of doctrine found in the scriptures and provide the theological framework for how we understand the Bible and apply it to this issue. We are putting the first ever confessional citation into the Book of Government (WLC 138-139, on the 7th commandment). WCF 6 (Of the Fall of Man), WCF 13 (Of Sanctification), WLC 23-27, 149 (Sin & Misery & the Law), WLC 45 (Christ’s office of king), WLC 75, 77-79 (Sanctification), WLC 138-139 (the 7th Commandment), and WLC 195 (Lead Us not into Temptation) especially shaped our recommendations.
PPL Reply: The AIC does not reference Westminster Larger Catechism Q150 and 151, which describe some sins as being more heinous than others. Q151 points solely to Romans 1:26-27 as describing sin “against the light of nature.” It is clear that homosexuality is unnatural sin which is more heinous sexual sin by virtue of its departure from God’s design of men and women created for each other sexually by God — this fact is transparent for all to observe in nature. This is standard Reformed understanding of Romans 1:26-27.
Q3: Do these recommendations diverge from the EPC’s historic views on sexuality?
A: No. Scripture is unambiguous. All people are created in God’s image, and his good design for marriage and sex is present in creation. Marriage is instituted by God between one man and one woman and sexual intimacy is reserved exclusively for that union. Jesus affirmed the goodness and purpose of marriage and the single life. Homosexuality, including homosexual lust, is sinful. These recommendations continue to uphold the EPC’s historic affirmation that the Bible requires chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage.
PPL Reply: Yes, the AIC recommendations not only fundamentally change EPC historic views on sexuality, but also fundamentally change the EPC’s historic view of sin. The 1986 Position Paper on Homosexuality represents the historic view of the EPC, a paper which was largely ignored by the AIC though they were directed to look at EPC position papers (plural) — not just the Position Paper on Human Sexuality. WLC 139 says that “sodomy and all unnatural lusts” are violations of the 7th Commandment. The proof texts for “sodomy and all unnatural lusts” are Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 20:15-16 — homosexuality and bestiality. These are disordered sexual attractions. The AIC’s position is that someone with a disordered sexual attraction (described by AIC as “ongoing SSA”) can be ordained as long as he or he is celibate. Celibacy will not order a disordered sexual attraction. The AIC alters the doctrine of sin by declaring that it is disqualifying only if one acts on that disordered sexual attraction. Jesus declared that sin committed in the heart or mind is still sin.
Q4: Is this making the issue of same-sex attraction a non-essential?
A: No. A non-essential in the EPC is a subject left unaddressed in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, whether directly or by necessary inference, and upon which reasonable people could disagree about the Bible’s teaching. The Bible and the Westminster Standards are clear on, and our recommendations affirm: i) God’s design for marriage and human sexuality and singleness; ii) the sinfulness of lust and same-sex sexual activity; iii) the reality of indwelling sin and total depravity and the necessity for repentance; iv) the reality of progressive sanctification in our union with Christ; v) and the nature of temptation and weakness in the condition of misery. Our recommended amendments to the Book of Government would be binding upon the whole denomination, while the Pastoral Letter provides guidance on how Session and Presbyteries should wisely exercise their judgment when addressing this issue.
PPL Reply: Yes, it would make ordination of someone sexually attracted to their same sex a non-essential in the EPC because it would leave the decision up to individual courts. On page 3 of the Ad Interim SSA Report, the AIC affirms, “Courts may consider for ordination candidates whose ongoing experience of SSA is a corrupted sin nature unindulged, repented of, and mortified; a temptation not entered into, but rather fled; a weakness not embraced, but rather mourned as they rest upon the grace and strength of the Lord.” If the AIC report is adopted, it would in effect make ordaining SSA individuals a local option, thus a matter of Christian liberty. To ordain someone who has dishonorable passions contrary to nature is a violation of our Constitution.
Q5: Will these recommendations allow for the ordination of homosexuals?
A: No. Officers in Christ’s church are called to the church by Christ. Such disciples are marked by their commitment to Christ and his lordship, reflected in their godly character. Homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian life.
PPL Reply: Yes, the AIC recommendations will allow for homosexual ordination. Persons who have ongoing experiences of desire for sexual relations with their same sex are homosexual. On page 3 of the Ad Interim SSA Report, the AIC affirms, “Courts may consider for ordination candidates whose ongoing experience of SSA is a corrupted sin nature unindulged, repented of, and mortified; a temptation not entered into, but rather fled; a weakness not embraced, but rather mourned as they rest upon the grace and strength of the Lord.” The AIC defines homosexuals as those who engage in homosexual acts. The AIC redefines homosexuals who are celibate but continue experiencing desires for sexual relations with their own sex as a new category of candidates for ordination, “those with SSA.” The Bible makes no distinction between the two. Neither does our culture, which defines an SSA person as a homosexual who embraces an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to people of the same sex. Instead of bringing clarity, the AIC has brought confusion by not using the Biblical language of Romans 1:26-27 – “dishonorable passions” and “contrary to nature” for desires/acts for sex with a person of one’s own gender. The AIC claim that SSA and homosexuality are not the same thing is deceptive. By defining terms unilaterally without using Biblical language, the AIC has created a distinction that is not valid Biblically, confessionally, or legally.
Q6: Are these recommendations the same as the PCA’s position?
A: The proposed language for the Book of Government revisions is taken almost verbatim from the PCA’s constitution. The approach used in the Position Paper and Pastoral Letter was both theologically and pastorally informed by the PCA’s study of this issue.
PPL Reply: This is true and this is the problem. The PCA position has not prevented SSA ordination in the PCA. There is a case pending now against a PCA presbytery which recently approved for ordination a celibate homosexual with continuing desires for sexual relations with their same sex. The case is now before the Standing Judicial Committee (SJC) of the PCA — we have confirmed this fact with a member of the PCA SJC. The fact that this case even exists is evidence that the PCA language is not adequate. Many in the PCA thought their Book of Government language was strong enough to keep homosexual candidates out of the PCA, but alas this apparently has not hindered a presbytery from proceeding on a same sex attracted candidate. Many in the PCA trust that their SJC will declare this presbytery action a violation of their constitution. If the AIC recommendations are approved, we will face the same situation in the EPC — complaints against presbyteries and severe division.
Furthermore, if the AIC was informed by prior actions of the PCA, then it would have overtured the EPC General Assembly to amend its Book of Government with language similar to that employed by the PCA which declared that homosexuals — including those who identify as homosexual using language such as gay, same sex attracted, or similar phrases — “are not qualified for ordained office.”
More problematic than the similarity between the AIC report and the PCA position is the similarity between the AIC report and the 1997 position taken by the PC(USA). In that year the PC(USA) approved Amendment B. It required all candidates for ordination to live either in: “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.” From 1997 to 2011 a homosexual candidate could be ordained only if he remained celibate. Bottom line: the AIC is recommending the PC(USA)’s policy on homosexuality from 1997 to 2011.
Terminology
Q7: What definitions are being used for the terms “gay”, “homosexual”, and “same-sex attraction”?
A: The terminology on this issue is constantly shifting and almost everyone has their own definitions. In our work, especially the Pastoral Letter, we use “gay” and “homosexuality” as umbrella terms to describe homoerotic worldview, lifestyle, conduct, and desires. The term “same-sex attraction” (SSA) is used to describe someone’s inward desires or proclivities. Additionally, we speak of “latent propensity,” which applies to individuals who know themselves to be especially vulnerable to homosexual temptations but who are repentant of all their homosexual lusts.
PPL Reply: Only terminology used in the secular culture is subject to change over time; the Bible — though subject to translation — is unchangeable. The concepts of “proclivities” or “latent propensity” are neither Biblical nor confessional. They are categories invented to create a distinction between homosexuality and SSA, which does not exist. There are no such categories used in orthodox historical theology because the Church Fathers, Reformers, and later Reformed theologians have been satisfied to use Biblical language when talking about sexual sin — both desires and acts.
Q8: Is it appropriate to use the term “gay Christian”?
A: No. Individuals who experience SSA may want to use the term “gay Christian” in order for the church and world to more readily understand their experience of a persistent, latent pull towards same-sex sexual temptation even as they make every effort by God’s grace to think and act according to His will. However, in our culture, the term “gay” is normally understood as affirming or engaging in homosexual practice. It is sinful to intentionally approve of sin and missionally foolish to invite that misunderstanding. Our identity is in Christ as his new creation, and we should not inadvertently communicate to the world that Jesus approves of sin. It is inappropriate to use terminology, including “gay Christian”, that welcomes confusion from the church and world.
PPL Reply: This is certainly correct, and we’re pleased to see this correction made to the Pastoral Letter which had allowed for using the term, stating: “gay Christian … may be a useful descriptive term in some settings” (see page 11 in a previous version of Pastoral Letter).
Q9: Are these Side B recommendations?
A: No. While Side B is a diverse movement, there are some areas of agreement between it and our recommendations. We agree that sex is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, that homosexuality is a result of the fall into sin, that homosexual sex and lust are sinful, and that those who identify as gay are called to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Jesus. This is commendable. However, we disagree with Side B in a number of crucial ways. We insist that homosexuality and same-sex attraction is a moral and sinful condition that demands repentance and mortification. We firmly reject the idea that there are any unique, healthy parts to same sex-sexual orientation that are gifts to be enjoyed and received. EPC officers must treat impulses towards same-sex attraction as impulses and temptations towards sin which must be denied.
PPL Reply: While it is true that the AIC is not making Side B recommendations per se, it is also true that it is opening the door to Side B in the EPC. The AIC is recommending changes to our Constitution, Position Paper on Human Sexuality, and Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality that if approved open the door to the ordination of celibate homosexuals. Furthermore, the AIC refused to acknowledge that someone could be supernaturally healed from homosexuality. Does the AIC believe homosexuality is unchangeable? Isn’t that a tenet of the “Side B” position?
The AIC’s Recommendations
Q10: What are the concrete recommendations from the committee?
A: We have four items that will be presented for a vote. They are to amend: i) the EPC’s “Position Paper on Human Sexuality”; ii) the section “Same-Sex Attraction” (which we are recommending be retitled “Homosexuality and Same-Sex Attraction”) in the EPC’s “Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality”; iii) Book of Government 9-3.A and 9-3.B; iv) and Book of Government 12-2.B, 12-3.A, 12-3.B.1, and 12-6.
PPL Reply: We recommend that all Commissioners to GA read the AIC findings that are presented in the proposed amendments to (1) the existing Position Paper on Human Sexuality, (2) the existing Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality, (3) proposed amendments to BoG 9-3.A and 9-3.B and (4) proposed amendments to BoG 12-2.B, 12-3.A, 12-3.B1, and 12-6. All of these are available on the Ad-Interim Committee on SSA page on the EPC website.
In addition, we recommend that all Commissioners to GA read the ascending overture from the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest consisting of preliminary recitals of theological justification as well as a proposed amendment to BoG 9-3.A.
Q11: Where can I find a summary of the committee’s recommendations?
A: Our committee is providing a report to the 46th GA. You can find it on EPConnect.org and in the commissioner’s handbook for GA. The substance of the report is only 2.5 pages long.
PPL Reply: We recommend that all Commissioners to GA read the AIC final report.
Q12: Brass tacks, can someone who is same-sex attracted be ordained in the EPC?
A: We affirm that only those “who conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in their descriptions of themselves, their convictions, character, and conduct should be considered for leadership.” Additionally, we affirm that “Courts may consider for ordination candidates whose ongoing experience of SSA is a corrupted sin nature unindulged, repented of, and mortified; a temptation not entered into, but rather fled; a weakness not embraced, but rather mourned as they rest upon the grace and strength of the Lord.” This is not a change in the EPC’s doctrine, but a clarification and strengthening of our language and standards.
PPL Reply: This statement, “Courts may consider for ordination candidates whose ongoing experience of SSA is a corrupted sin nature unindulged, repented of, and mortified; a temptation not entered into, but rather fled; a weakness not embraced, but rather mourned as they rest upon the grace and strength of the Lord” is very convoluted and incoherent. How can someone with an “ongoing experience of SSA” (present tense) not be participating in indulging one’s sin nature, yielding to temptation and embracing a weakness? This statement implies that SSA is beyond the person’s control, thus is a condition that is not in itself sinful. The condition of perceiving oneself to be SSA is yielding to sexual sin rather than killing (mortifying) it. According to Scripture, it is our sinful desires which produce temptation! (James 1:13-14)
The Position Paper on Human Sexuality, if approved, will rescind the denomination’s position papers on Homosexuality and The Sanctity of Marriage; though one must read the footnotes to know this (see p. 6, footnote 49). To rescind those previous position papers with a footnote buried in their report seems devious and underhanded, to say the least. It’s like the fine print you don’t read when signing a legal document. Who would think of doing such a thing?
Creation, Sin, & Sanctification
Q13: What is concupiscence, and what is its connection to same-sex attraction?
A: While the term “concupiscence” is absent from the Westminster Standards, the Reformed understanding of the doctrine is present. The human heart is sinfully corrupt and gives rise to disordered desires, which are also sin. Until Christ returns, this corrupt nature, while pardoned and mortified by Jesus, remains in the regenerate during this life and the corruption itself and all motions proceeding from it remain truly and properly sin (WCF 6.5). Same-sex sexual lusts and desires are an example of such sin. This means that these desires are to be repented of and mortified, and the totally depraved heart which gives rise to them is also to be repented of and mortified. This corrupt nature is often called indwelling or remaining sin and remains with the believer their whole life long (WCF 6.5, 13.2-3, 17.3; WLC 78) and therefore the whole of the Christian life is one of repentance.
PPL Reply: The word concupiscence in the Bible means strong desire, especially pertaining to sexuality. The word is found in older translations such as the 1599 Geneva Bible and King James Version. Newer translations substitute phrases such as “covetous desires” (Romans 7:8, NLT), “evil desires” (Colossians 3:5, NIV), and “passion of lust” (1 Thessalonians 4:5, ESV). The AIC states that “same-sex sexual lusts and desires” qualify as concupiscence. But how is it possible to be “experiencing ongoing same sex attraction” and not be experiencing same sex sexual lusts and desires? To say same sex attraction in itself is not sin per se is a denial of what Scripture and the confessional standards teach about sinful sexual desires.
Q14: How do temptations and latent propensity to same-sex attraction fit into this?
A: Growth in sanctification does not mean the decline of temptation in a Christian’s life, nor does it automatically mean the healing of weakness, but rather means the Christian growing in strength to resist and flee temptation. The experience of temptation is not itself sin (WLC 195). Our corrupt heart tempts us to sin, as do Satan and our fallen world. Our bodies and temperaments are also broken by sin, leaving us weak and vulnerable to sin and temptation — a latent propensity towards them. Same-sex attraction can refer both to the experience of remaining sin, and can also refer to temptation and vulnerability, like a thorn in the flesh. Neither the scriptures nor the Westminster Standards ever teach that we are to repent of temptation or weakness. We are to repent of and mortify sin, including our sinful nature from which some temptations may arise internally, and are to flee all temptation and rest upon the strength of Christ in our weakness. Jesus corrects us in our sins, and supports us in all our temptations and sufferings (WLC 45).
PPL Reply: This statement is asserting that same sex attraction is a thorn in the flesh, a weakness making one vulnerable to temptation. Yes, we are not told to repent of temptations. But we are told to repent of the sinful desires that are behind those temptations to further sin (James 1:13-14). The reason someone is having ongoing same sex attraction is they have not mortified (killed) by the Spirit these sinful desires. Attempts to explain away the experience of same sex attraction as though it was not intrinsically sin are futile.
Q15: Shouldn’t someone who is a new creation in Christ and progressing in holiness be free of same-sex attraction?
A. Someone who is a new creation in Christ, united to him and indwelt by his Spirit, and progressing in holiness should be strengthened in grace and the practice of true holiness, meaning that the power of sin no longer has dominion and sinful lusts are weakened in their life and do not characterize their behavior (WCF 13.1). However, sanctification in this life is imperfect and the corruption of sin remains in “every part” of the believer and we “are continually plagued with desires of [our] old sinful nature that are contrary to the spirit” (WCF 13.2; WLC 78, modern edition). Therefore, the sanctified life is one of constant warring and progressive victory against the impulses to sin, not the absence of the pressure to sin (WCF 13.3; WLC 78, 195). The growth in holiness for the person who experiences same-sex attraction includes increased strength in resisting sin, including same-sex lusts; the Spirit enabling them to flee every temptation, including the temptation to same-sex lusts; and resting their weakness on the power of Christ.
PPL Reply: In WCF 13:3 (the pinnacle of the chapter on Sanctification), the Westminster Divines asserted: “Although the old nature temporarily wins battles in this warfare, the continual strengthening of the sanctifying Spirit of Christ enables the regenerate nature in each believer to overcome. And so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” The word “overcome” is key — the born-again believer, by the power of the Spirit overcomes, perfecting holiness. This is what one would expect in the life of a minister of the gospel. A person experiencing ongoing same sex attraction has not truly repented and overcome this unnatural sin.
Q16: How does natural/unnatural sin or desires work into this conversation?
A: There is no such thing as “natural sin”. In Romans 1 Paul says that homosexuality is an unnatural relation which is a dishonorable passion contrary to nature, and Jude 7 describes Sodom and Gomorrah as being judged for pursuing “strange flesh”, often translated “unnatural desire”. Our recommendations agree with Paul and Jude and we quote them. WLC 139 states “The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment….are adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts (‘unnatural desires’ in the modern edition).” Homosexuality is certainly an unnatural sin and desire, and it is not the only one. “Unnatural lusts” serves as a comprehensive description of all sins that violate the seventh commandment. Unrepentant sinners who indulge unnatural lusts or desires have no place in church office. Our recommendations are clear–Christians are to flee all sexual sin and temptation, and that Jesus is a great savior who can redeem even those of us who have committed unnatural sins (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
PPL Reply: This attempted explanation of “unnatural” is not consistent with Paul’s argument in Romans 1. These comments are telling because they expose the AIC’s unwillingness to accept the Church’s historic understanding of Romans 1:26-27 and the WLC’s use of this text. Romans 1:26-27 uniquely equates homosexuality with “unnatural desires or affections.” This is the very point Paul is making — homosexual passions and acts are contrary to nature, that is, rejecting God’s creation and opposing the way God created men and women for each other sexually. The unique description of homosexuality as against nature is so transparent in Romans 1:26-27 that Larger Catechism. Q. 139 and 151 cite the text as a proof for the assertions that homosexuality is an “unnatural lust” and “against the light of nature.” For certainty in understanding the intent of the words used in the Larger Catechism, look at the Scripture texts the Westminster Divines reference!
Standards for Ordination
Q17: What about those who profess, persist in, or identify with unnatural desires or affections?
A: A lot of EPCers have asked why our committee has not used this language, especially since it seems so simple and clear. But we think it’s very unclear and either doesn’t do anything at all or does far too much. “Unnatural desires” include homosexuality, but also includes much more than that (WLC 139). If “profess, persist in, or identify with unnatural desires” means “indulged and unrepentant”, then Amen! We agree that those who indulge in and are unrepentant of unnatural desires should not be officers of the church. However, if that’s what that phrase means, then it doesn’t actually address the issue before the EPC since we are talking about people who are penitent and who don’t indulge same-sex attraction. If “profess, persist in, or identify with unnatural desires” means something like “sin nature that continues to exist or ongoing temptation we face or besetting weakness we experience” then it bars literally every human ever, besides Christ, from ordained office. This understanding is contrary to scripture, our confessional system, and the redemptive message of the gospel. All believers have remaining sin whose desires are contrary to nature and scripture, and who therefore fail to perfectly keep God’s law (WCF 6.5, 13.2; WLC 78, 149), and all believers face ongoing temptation (WLC 195) and vulnerabilities to sin and temptation (WLC 27-28, 45, 81). So either “profess, persist in, or identify with unnatural desires” doesn’t solve anything or it dangerously undermines the EPC’s biblical confession of faith.
PPL Reply: The AIC asserts, “We agree that those who indulge in and are unrepentant of unnatural desires should not be officers of the church.” If this is true, then logically the AIC would not be recommending that same sex attracted persons be ordained. If one is experiencing ongoing same-sex desires, then they are unrepentant and indulging a desire that should be killed and overcome by the power of the Spirit.
The AIC falsely states that “‘unnatural desires’ include homosexuality but also includes much more than that (WLC 139).” Yes, there are many sexual violations of the 7th commandment listed in WLC 139. But when it mentions “sodomy and unnatural lusts” it cites Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 20:15-16 (homosexuality and bestiality) as the “unnatural lusts” to which the Divines are referring. They do not include all the other sexual sins under the rubric of unnatural, but only these two sins which violate the creation order of sex between a man and a woman.
Claiming that a high standard of ordination that excludes celibate homosexuals would disqualify “every human ever” is a red herring. The Bible names a unique kind of sin called “unnatural” which is homosexuality. In Scripture, homosexuality is described as an abomination. Prior to the last 50 years, the Church has never knowingly ordained a homosexual person — this is because he or she has deep-seated sexual problems, cannot relate properly to men or women, cannot be an example to the flock, and is not above reproach in the sight of God nor the Christian community. There are many other ongoing sins that may disqualify from ordination, but homosexuality is intrinsically disqualifying as shameful passions contrary to nature. Persons with homosexuality in their backgrounds but have marked freedom from and have thus overcome this sin pattern, may be considered for ordination — but again, not someone with ongoing same sex attraction.
Question 17 in the AIC FAQ is challenging the wording of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery overture to the General Assembly. This critique is out of place in a document whose stated purpose is to address questions about the AIC recommendations. Here is an explanation of the language used in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery overture.
Q18: Shouldn’t the EPC have higher standards for leadership?
A: Yes. The standards are higher for those who would serve as officers in the church and the examinations for TEs are most detailed and strenuous. Unrepentant sinful behavior and unrepented lusts disqualify candidates for office in the EPC. Our examining bodies must use wisdom to ask and understand whether the individual seeking ordination is dealing repentantly with lust, desires, vulnerabilities and propensities or embracing, accommodating or making peace with those. This is precisely why we are recommending that the Book of Government be amended to include more specific character qualifications.
PPL Reply: The AIC’s declaration that high standards are a certainty is unreliable. We all should hope that all Sessions and Presbyteries utilize “detailed and strenuous” examinations of candidates for ordination of all officers (TE, RE, Deacon). However, commissioners who will be considering these matters at the 46th General Assembly do not have this as a guarantee now — and certainly will not expect it to be the case if the GA approves the consideration of same sex attracted homosexual candidates for ordination.
Q19: Why don’t your recommendations specifically provide language to amend the Book of Government to allow or deny the ordination of individuals experiencing same-sex attraction?
A: Temptations accompany Christians their whole life, confronting both the immature and the mature. To profess the ongoing temptation to same-sex lust is to profess the reality of indwelling sin, bodily weakness and vulnerabilities, the fallenness of our world, and the providence of God in our experience of temptation. The existence and persistence of same-sex sexual temptation is not in itself sin or a sign of spiritual immaturity. If a candidate’s corrupt sin nature means there remain “old self” sin vulnerabilities (here, SSA), but they are not indulging in it (aren’t acting upon it physically or mentally), are repentant of it (have turned from it to the Lord), are mortifying it (are putting it to death by engaging in practices that seek to reduce any vulnerability they have to it), are not entering into it (don’t act on their vulnerability), are fleeing it (don’t put themselves in risky situations), are mourning it (see it as something to grieve), and are relying on the grace and strength of the Lord to have it replaced more and more by their new self in Christ, then they may be considered for ordination. To deny ordination to someone solely on the grounds of the experience of possessing a sin nature, ongoing temptation, and bodily weakness contradicts both scripture and our confessional standards.
PPL Reply: The AIC was charged by the 44th General Assembly to address the matter of same sex attraction (homosexuality) and ordination. The AIC does this by recommending a change in our ordination standards through “Our Counsel to Pastors, Sessions, and Presbyteries” in its proposed Pastoral Letter. A Pastoral Letter has no constitutional authority. Yet if passed, that “Counsel” will grant permission to ordaining bodies to ordain those presently experiencing same sex attraction.
Q20: Is someone who experiences same-sex attraction able to be above reproach?
A: Yes. Officers of Christ’s church must absolutely be above reproach! They must be blameless — not marked by vice, able to withstand accusations of sinful character and behavior. This is why we recommend the Book of Government be amended to say that officers must “conform to the biblical requirement of chastity and sexual purity in their descriptions of themselves, their convictions, character, and conduct” and that to “be qualified for office, they must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, and be committed to the pursuit of Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions.” To be above reproach is about how one addresses their sin nature, the temptations they face, and weaknesses they experience. Someone who experiences same-sex attraction can be blameless by their repentance and mortification of sin, fleeing temptation, and resting on Christ’s strength.
PPL Reply: A person is “blameless” not by repenting of and mortifying sin, by fleeing temptation or by resting on God’s strength. It comes only and completely by accepting Jesus as Savior. The AIC has elevated intent without change as the animating concept of being “above reproach.” The fact of the matter is that there are multitudes of believers who have been delivered from their homosexual past. Those are the kinds of persons who would qualify for ordination, not someone with ongoing experience of homosexual desires (SSA). A person freed from those old sin patterns by the Spirit would certainly be considered by God and the Christian community as being “beyond reproach.”
Q21: If someone experiences a latent propensity towards same-sex attraction, is a court of the church obliged to ordain them?
A: No. No one has the right to church office. We are addressing eligibility for consideration for ordination, not rights. No Church court is required to take a position on a candidate it feels is unbiblical or imprudent.
PPL Reply: Why would an official committee of the EPC propose a position or policy that immediately creates division within the denomination and confusion for Sessions and Presbyteries? The Bible warns against this — see Romans 16:17-20, 1 Corinthians 1:10-31, and 1 Corinthians 12:25-26. With the passage of the Pastoral Letter and changes to the Book of Order and Position Paper, the EPC will enter a dangerous place. Remember that the Pastoral Letter creates a process. If at any point of that process the ordination candidate who “experiences a latent propensity towards same sex attraction” believes that he was not treated in a way consistent with that process (for example, the candidate concludes that the ordaining court did not “exercise their authority in a spirit of gentleness, compassion and understanding”) he will be in a position to bring substantial public pressure on the church or presbytery. How will the church court protect and defend itself in public? Whether or not the ministerial exception applies, the reputational harm and dissention within the presbytery and church could result in great damage.
Q22: How should candidates and courts handle disclosures of same-sex attraction?
A: We advise those Christians who experience same-sex attraction to use discretion in disclosing their experience to others, normally only to those who can give good private counsel or to those who would be edified by their largely fruitful struggle. Since we believe, in most cases, “coming out of the closet publicly” is not helpful to others, we advise against that. Ordaining courts must examine all candidates in their experience of the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ, faithful conformity to his character, obedience to him as Lord, and steady progress in spiritual growth. All candidates must affirm the sinfulness of fallen desires, the reality and hope of progressive sanctification, and be committed to the pursuit of Spirit-empowered victory over their sinful temptations, inclinations, and actions. If a candidate has publicly disclosed that they experience same-sex attraction, the ordaining court must ensure that the candidate meets the biblical and confessional standards outlined in the Position Paper and Pastoral Letter.
PPL Reply: If same sex attraction is no different from every other sin, why is it necessary to “use discretion in disclosing their experience to others?” Is this an encouragement to deceive those conducting examination of candidates for office? This reiterates our concern noted in our response to Q18 above.
Leave a Comment